Talk:Palestine (region)

were the jewish population higher in 1914 than in 1922 ??

it isnt even a country, why is there an article, someone show me where palestine is on a map please!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr spork32 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither are the Balkans. Or Kaukasus. Or The Middle East. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.43.102 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a country. It is the historical name of the land on which Israel and the Palistinian Authority is found. The Palestinian Authority is recognised by roughly 100 nations, and is an observer nation to the UN. A map of the of that is here. And something does not have to be a country to be found on a map. 'Utah' isn't a country, neither is 'Siberia' or the 'Thames', yet one can still identify them on a map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.41.42 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Spork, this area is not for discussion of the subject of the article, but discussion of the article itself. Political opinions are not appropriate. nut-meg (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

according to the figures here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Demographics_in_the_late_Ottoman_and_British_Mandate_periods the jewish pop where 94.000 in 1914 and only 84.000 in 1922. I find that a bit hard to believe. According to Justin McCarthy there were about 59,000 Jews in Palestine in 1914, and 657.000 Muslim Arabs, and 81.000 Christian Arabs.--Ezzex (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yehoshua Porath credits the population decrease on WWI, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Ottoman Turks, in "The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929," pg. 17. (pub. 1974)

Unlike the European Jewry moving into Palestine, many Palestinian Jews (Yishuv) were about as dirt-poor as the Arab Fellahin.

Actually, Jordan is also part of historic Palestine. That's changes the whole story now, doesn't it? Jordan is occupying Palestinian land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.101.34 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The British imperialist bigots partitioned the middle east (and Jordan). With a common school ruler it seems. 84.215.43.102 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lassner and Troen, 2007

This book is used as a citation in the Origin of Name section. If possible, I would like to know what is the specific text in those two pages of the book that are used as a citation that bases the claim about "Muslim geographers". Thanks John Hyams (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are three sources cited for the section on the Arabic name for Palestine. The first from the Marshall and Cavendish Corporation notes that Palestine is "Philistine" in Arabic. The Moshe Sharon source attributes the Arabic form Filastin to adoption of the Roman name with Arabic inflection. The third source, the one you are asking about, states:

The historic jund of al-Urdunn may have contained parts of the West Bank, but the jund of Filastin, whose name Muslim geographers traced back to the Philistines of the Bible, was an adminsitrative district of geographical Palestine that extended as far as Amman.

Your repeated efforts to erase "Philistine", referred to by the first source, and to distort the meaning of text that follows, are uncalled for. Please stop it. Tiamut^talk 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Illan Pappe

Is absolutely a reliable source. A full professor at a major university with the book published by reputable publisher is a reliable source. There is also a noticeboard discussion where nearly every uninvolved editor agreed he is a reliable source. Please dont distort policy around your political feelings. nableezy - 07:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A political activist is not a reliable source.

And anyway, the paragraph you inserted makes claims regarding several people, without presenting a single source. Find a source, then we'll discuss it. okedem (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is not very good. The information is rock solid, but Pappe didn't have much to do with exposing it. I don't think Pappe is needed here. The basics of the story have been known for ages (eg "O Jerusalem", 1972) but Avi Shlaim in his book "Collusion across the Jordan" was the one mostly responsible for tapping the archival sources. I'm out of time today but if nobody else gets to it first I'll replace the text by a more precise account with one or two better sources. So don't waste time over the existing text. Zero^talk 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the claim (regarding Abdullah) itself. I know there were talks between the sides, so it wouldn't surprise me; however, there was intensive fighting between the Israelis and the Jordanians (Arab Legion), so it seems whatever agreement was reached, no one abided by it.

Anyway, I just want good text, with good sources, also explaining if this is controversial, or a widely accepted claim, and what happened to any such understanding (like - why the two sides fought so hard if everything was agreed upon). okedem (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is more than 1 way to cite a source and when the book and documentary are explicitly referenced in the text that is providing sources. And no matter what you think of Pappe he is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. nableezy - 15:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, have you read the paragraph you keep adding? It mentions other historians as well, though it's so badly written it's hard to understand what is being said of them, and what of Pappe. There's no source for the claims regarding the "Many historians", no explanation of the meaning of this supposed partition, no explanation of why it obviously didn't occur in reality (as I've explained above).

And Pappe is a joke. Find real historians. It shouldn't be too hard - you claim Morris dealt with it - let's use him, and not the fringe political activist.

Now, instead of edit-warring a problematic paragraph into the article, why don't you present the sources here, and we can try to find a well written phrasing, in place of the current enigmatic claims? okedem (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you have reverted the material out more times than any one single editor has reverted it in. I'm glad to see you self-reverted yourself last time, but really. It would help if you would not make false claims about Ilan Pappe. He is certainly a reliable source. I almost reverted you the first time you deleted the info simply because of your edit summary impugning his reliability. I decided against it only because a) someone beat me to it, b) like Zero, I think the paragraph needs a little work. Tiamut^talk 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When a controversial addition is made to an article, it customary to revert, and discuss it on the talk page, to work on it and gain support, not use numbers to stick it in there, regardless of veracity, sources or language. It's a shame your only contribution to this talk is an attack on myself, instead of something useful. Pappe, I repeat myself, is a political activist, with little care for what actually took place, using his position to further his case, instead of investigating actual event. There are actual historians out there, and we can use them as sources, especially seeing the new paragraph claims they dealt with it as well. okedem (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not customary to WP:REVERT. It is customary to improve problematic additions, per WP:PRESERVE. That is what you have been doing in your last few edits since you self-reverted your 4th revert of this material (I guess to avoid being reported for WP:3RR, which you had violated). Instead of knee-jerk reverting from the outset, you could have made the edits you made just now, and avoided the revert war that followed.

And again, you opinions as to Pappe's reliability are not shared by the Wiki community. The consensus was clear: he is a reliable source. You may not like it,but that is not a valid reason to delete material attributed to him. In this case, if he is not the source, that's one issue. But don't mix that up with your personal grudge against him. Tiamut^talk 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition is still crap. It's unsourced, makes peculiar claims, and fails to explain why, in reality, there still was terrible fighting between the sides. Oh, and would you like to provide a link to that "clear consensus" in favor of this guy? :::::::Oh, and it's a rather nonsensical claim anyway - the Jews very clearly accepted and supported the partition plan, so any why would there even be a need for secret agreements? This new addition is really useless from an information stand-point... okedem (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, its crap now, but it can be improved. The claims are not at all peculiar. As Zero pointed out above they have been made by a number of historians. In Pappe's, The Israel/Palestine question, Avi Shlaim notes this was the thesis of his book Collusion across the Jordan, and that though he was not the first to make these claims, his book received heavy criticism from both sides of the Jordan river. I'm still looking for more sources on the issue and will add them as they come in.

About Pappe being an WP:RS, Nableezy linked you to the noticeboard discussion where every non-partisan editor (i.e. every editor who did not edit at I-P articles on either side) said he was clearly an RS, based on his work being published by academic publishers. His biases, which he holds just as anyone else does, do not disqualify us from using him as a source. Tiamut^talk 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then. If you agree it's crap - why aren't you removing it? We don't have to keep crap on the article, you know. If something isn't good enough for the article, we should work on it on the talk page, and only place it there when it's ready, if it's even within the scope of this. Considering the entire section on partition and war is 5 paragraphs long, this seems a bit too specific, if even true and perfectly sourced. It looks like something that might belong in the article about the war itself.

Your link doesn't work for me, unfortunately. Anyway, I'm still looking for an explanation of what were these "agreements", and why the Israelis and Jordanians still fought each other.

And now you've moved your goal-posts - not a clear consensus, but some people who probably aren't really well versed in this topic, think he's reliable. okedem (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not removing it because I think the information is generally correct and I think leaving it in with fact tags asking people to improve it will motivate people to improve it. I'm sorry the link I gave you doesn't work for you. Its very interesting information. I'll add from it and others soon I hope.

If you are suggesting that we need to go the reliable sources discussion board over Ilan Pappe again, I have no problem with that. I will let them know that you do not see a consensus in the previous discussion adn ask them to consider the question once more. Tiamut^talk 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, with your information source, can you explain the importance to me, explain why this deserves space in such a short summary section, and explain why, in reality, Israelis fought the Jordanians?

You can't just discount the opinion of some users because you disagree with them, and editing an article doesn't disqualify someone as a judge of what is or isn't an RS. It is clear that some view Pappe as an RS, and some don't. He's obviously very involved in the political aspect of this, and his work received heavy criticism from serious historians. If something is of note, we can cite good historians to support it. If he's the only one, than it's clearly a fringe opinion, to be considered only within the scope of a much larger discussion. okedem (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I should relist at the RS noticeboard about Pappe? Does it really matter anymore? Have you seen my last edit? You do realize that this a position held among the New Historians, and I've used Avi Shlaim now. (Do you have a problem with him too? Or just Pappe?) I think one sentence about it is relevant to a section discussing the partition of Palestine.

And by the way, a lot of what harlan has put forward below is relevant too. Maybe this article should not go into so much detail, but information on the restrained military manouvers of the Arab Legion under Glubb's command is mentioned by many historians. When Israel and Jordan did engage in battles, they fought as each other as enemies, as they were at the height of the war. But their relationship before and after it definitely affected the overall behaviour of at the very least the Jordanian side. It was not at all as aggressive as it should have been, if it was fighting to annihilate Israel, as some propagandists claim. It wasn't. Abdullah was ready to accept a Jewish state in exchange for the West Bank. Hussein only gave up Jordan's claims to it in 1988. Anyway, we can't cover everything here, but a sentence or two here and there would not be bad, linking to sub-articles where things could be covered in more detail. Tiamut^talk 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming into the talk page to thank you for your edit. It makes more sense now. I knew that the Jordanians mostly limited themselves to the designated Arab-state regions, with the notable exception of Jerusalem. Would you mind mentioning that? Does Shlaim explain that?

Forget Pappe for now. It doesn't matter anymore, and I haven't the time for a lengthy discussion. I can't say I particularly like Shlaim, but he seems significantly more credible than Pappe, who is simply unprofessional. okedem (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, Ilan Pappe is published by I.B. Taurus, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge. He is a notable bestselling author to boot. The works of the Kimche brothers, Morris, Shlaim, Pappe, Wilson, Rogan, and etc. which outline the agreement with Transjordan are taught in most Israeli university courses on the history, political science, and sociology. see for example "Doubting the Yishuv-Hashemite Agreement" starting on page 7 of "Refabricating 1948", by Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies.[1] The Wikimedia goal is to make the sum of human knowledge available, not just the parts you happen to agree with. The topic of ethnic cleansing should be included since a number of historians like Morris and Pappe have published notable accounts on the basis of Israeli State Archive materials. harlan (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Most of the authors were already listed in the Palestine Exodus sidebar. Flapan noted that the majority of Jewish casualties occurred outside the borders of the proposed Jewish state.

The individuals involved and other historians have also addressed the claim that no one abided by the 17 November 1947 agreement. Morris and General Glubb devoted entire books to the subject: The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, by Morris; and A Soldier with the Arabs, by John Baggot Glubb. Bevin told the Prime Minister of Transjordan, Abul Huda, and Glubb not to invade the territory of the Jewish state. The British threatened to withhold the 2 million pound subsidy they provided annually to underwrite the Arab Legion. The Prime Minister told Bevin that the 9000-man force couldn't hope to occupy all of Palestine even if it had wanted to do so. The British had failed to maintain law and order in Western Palestine when they had more than 100,000 troops at their disposal, including the Arab Legion. There was never any intensive fighting between Jordan and Israel in the territory of the proposed Jewish state. harlan (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Current status section - a mess

• Current status repeats some of the stuff in the section on the UN partition plan and 1948 war just above it. Anyone feel like tackling the problem or have suggestions on how to re-organize? Tiamut^talk 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

20th Century and Palestine Mandate Sections

From the 20th Century onward this article is really about the State of Palestine, not the geographical region. It should be labeled as such. A great deal of historical information regarding the region of Palestine was deleted: [2]

The Palestine mandate was a State. It was a signatory to several international treaties in its own right and under its own name. Article 46 of the Treaty of Lausanne provided that the Ottoman Public Debt "shall be distributed . . . between Turkey" and, among others, "the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty." (28 League of Nations Treaty Series 11, 37). That provision was applied to the areas of Western Palestine and Transjordan under the British Mandate. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided that concessions granted Ottoman authorities were valid under Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne which provided in part: "In the territories detached from Turkey under the Treaty of Peace signed this day, the State which acquires the territory is fully subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of the other Contracting Powers . . . who are beneficiaries under concessionary contracts entered into before the 29th October, 1914, with the Ottoman Government or any local Ottoman authority. . . ." ( 28 League of Nations Treaty Series 203, 211.) see Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, US State Department (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 651-652 harlan (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, and no it wasn't. The nonsensical claim "The Palestine mandate was a State" doesn't really deserve any further discussion. okedem (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You can take that up with the US State Department. Their 'International Law Digest' is an official publication. It says that the Palestine Mandate was a State, and the Permanent Court of International Justice Judgment in the Mavrommatis case said the same thing. The material and citation that I provided above come directly from the State Department Digest. I consider that to be a pretty reliable source of information on the subject. I notice that you didn't provide any citation to a verifiable or reliable published source to support your opposing viewpoint. The Statehood of Palestine before and after WWII is also discussed by John Quigley in Palestine and International Law, ed. Sanford R. Silverburg, McFarland and Co., Chapter 2, and the Rutgers Law Review article. [3] harlan (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a state. It had special status, but ultimately, the power lay with Britain, not with the people of Palestine, who had no central leadership or institutions. Of course, you trying to connect any of this to the modern entity "State of Palestine" is nothing short of ridicules, as no connection exists.

Forget it. I should have gone with my instincts, and simply ignored your fantasies. okedem (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Arabs of Palestine certainly had a government and institutions. The Transjordan area was not an independent state, it was only an area with an independent Arab government that was still subject to British tutelage. Even under the terms of the 1946 treaty, its foreign affairs and military remained under British control, and the Arab Legion was still used to provide public security in Western Palestine. When it suited the propaganda purposes of the Jewish Agency it was characterized as an indivisible part of the mandate. At other times it was characterized as an independent neighboring state. harlan (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 20th century section is one sided, because it seems to blame the indigenous Palestinians for the conflict between Palestinian Arabs and the Zionists and Jewish Settlers. The Mandate of Palestine is the last time the region of Palestine was entire (actually bigger than at any other time in it's history)so the comparison of Palestine to its political reality is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GCaisle (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming

I want to comment on the fact no single source in the naming section refers to a specific territory or the whole region nor it would probably be possible to mine it out of their context. this should be clarified. some regions names pillistine throughout the ages refereed to different areas depending on the political context.