Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

to Aua: why did you deleted those sentences:

The Arabs appear to have used the same methods, but with poor results

The Diff page

your reason: " "using the same methods" is too much of an umbrella term encompassing all the aforementioned tactics including threatening the safety of individuals a la India. Poor and misleading phrasing."

If you do not agree with few words in the first lines, what is the justification of deleting all of my edit?

Please return most of my edit i.e the undisputed content.

We can discuss those disputed 4 words. Would you accept "using about the same methods"? Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As you can probably see, the methods employed by one side to pressure countries is not even remotely comparable to a simple bribe to an individual by the other side. When you write "using the same methods," you are drawing a false parallel. I also saw POV in what you added anyways. I think Arabs' methods deserve a mention, but to suggest comparability is POV in and of itself.

"About the same methods" => grammatically awkward, factually inaccurate.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How would you re-write those deleted sentences? Ykantor (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Though to a much lesser extent, some Arabs tried, unsuccessfully, to win votes for their cause. Examples include offering a bribe to a Russian diplomat and underlining the potential for war should the resolution pass."

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Arabs appear to have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results:

• They tried to bribe delegates
• They threatened a war should the assembly endorse partition. e.g. “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”
• They threatened the Western Powers, with an oil embargo and abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc"

One sentence is modified, i.e the one you were against it. The other sentences stay the same, since they are well supported and you have not claimed a problem there.

Besides, the previous sentences are wp:undue , giving too much weight to the Jewish pressure. Ykantor (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope; I disagree with that. There are still problems that are factual, for instance, "they tried to bribe delegates" is inaccurate. There is no evidence they tried to bribe more than one.

WP:UNDUE would be to give a Morris paragraph a whole corresponding subsection. More sources on the topic would be helpful for your cause. Otherwise, I am opposed.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Arabs appear to have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results:

• They tried to bribe a delegate
• They threatened a war should the assembly endorse partition. e.g. “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”
• They threatened the Western Powers, with an oil embargo and abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc"

The plural "delegates" is modified to "a delegate". The other sentences stay the same, since they are well supported and you have not claimed a problem there. will you accept that? Ykantor (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

promising to respect the rights of the Jewish minority

the Diff page

This added sentence of yours, should be always balanced. At the moment it it appears twice, and only the second occurrence is balanced. In my opinion the first one should be removed or be balanced. BTW the term "balanced" is an understatement. The Arab leaders other sentences, clearly show that most of the Jews would not receive rights , but would be expelled etc. Ykantor (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

dubious- Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair

The sentence "Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair" appears here. It is not correct, since even if the partition was fair, the Arabs would not accept it. The Arabs said openly, that the only accepted soution is a Unitary sate in all of Palestine. Ykantor (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like that dubious tag. It should be removed.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Will you be able to respond to the specified reasons? Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor -- not sure what that means, since the majority of Arab spokesmen/leaders vehemently insisted that any form of partition (and in fact, any manner of giving Jews sovereignty over any territory) would be inherently unjust. A few of them joked about giving the Jews one synagogue in Tel Aviv to be the "Jewish Vatican" (but they didn't really mean it)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Also of note is that the Arabs also rejected the Peel partition, which allocated about 80% of the land to an Arab state, thereby debunking claims of unfair land distribution. Sammy1857 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the so-called Arabs' point of view, it was unfair to see Jews establish themselves in their land : Palestine. Note that 95+ % of Israelis today consider unfair to see Palestinian Arabs coming back in their homes 60 years later.

There is nothing dubious in the fact they consider this as unfair. What may be dubious is that it would be unfair but that is not what the sentence says.

I add that talking about Arab point of view is no sense. There were many different Arab population and nation with different points of views even if regarding Zionism, the mainstream consensus was an opposition.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sentence should have been:"95+ % of Israelis today consider unfair do not want to see Palestinian Arabs coming back in their homes 60 years later." Ykantor (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would not they want then ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The question in the polls is usually whether people oppose or accept the return of the refugees. The reason is not discussed. In my opinion people are afraid of Arabs (in terms of personal security). I guess it is difficult to believe in, but that is how people feel. Ykantor (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. This sounds logical after the terrorism of the years 2000.

In the case of Palestinian Arabs during British Mandate, I don't remember reading something else than Palestinian Arabs consider unfair to see Jews establishing in Palestine and getting equal or higher rights. Nationalist and antisemite feelings were well established at the time. I don't think they feared Jews. You think the "unfair" is dubious. What is your mind ? What was the reason they would have argued ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As in the header, it is disputed that the "Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair". The Arabs would have rejected any form of partition e.g. 99% to the Arabs. It is not disputed that the Arabs considered the partition as unfair. Ykantor (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is, is the statement sourced? Or does the source only support the second half of the sentence? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

user Trahelliven

Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine...

1 What leaders?

2 What exactly does the source say? Trahelliven (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

1 Neither question has been answered.

2 Neither of the two quotes contains either of the two quotations contained in the deleted paragraph. Trahelliven (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Morris 2008, p. 187 ." Azzam told Kirkbride:...we will sweep them[the Jews] into the sea" Ykantor (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Just War in Religion and Politics - Page 309, books.google.co.il/books?isbn=0761860940, Jacob Neusner, ‎Bruce D. Chilton, ‎R. E. Tully - 201, "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague" Ykantor (talk)
• The Elected and the Chosen: Why American Presidents Have Supported Jews and..., books.google.co.il/books?isbn=9652295981, Denis Brian - 2012 ,p. 232, ".... the Arab delegation stormed fiom the hall and Arab leaders spoke of ”driving the Jews into the sea," and of ”the Zionist plague." Ykantor (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a manipulation of Morris.

He writes p 187 : "What was the goal fo the planned invasion ? Arab spokesman indulged in a variety of definitions". Then he gives the quote reported by Ykantor and other quotes too. But 10 lines farther, he writes : "But officially and publicly, the Arab states were more circumspect and positive. Most decribed the aim ofthe invasion as "saving" the Palestinian Arabs." He gives exemples. Again 10 lines farther, he adds : "But the actual military planning had been less ambitious. The Arab armies appear not to have had an agreed plan when they invaded Palestine. on 14 May, even of a most general kind".

WP:NPOV would require some more efforts :

1. reporting fairly what a source says when we use it.

2. and as usual, not forgetting all reliable points of view from the other sources.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1 Do not forget s:Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

2 If you wish to rely on references, they should be put in the article when an edit is first made, not when it is pointed out that the references given are inadequate.

3 Even if a couple of Arab leaders say the same thing, do not write, Arab leaders said...: write, X and Y said.

4 Perhaps Ykantor might redraft the paragraph with these comments in mind and submit it to Pluto and me for our comments. Trahelliven (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Trahelliven: "If you wish to rely on references, they should be put in the article when an edit is first made, not when it is pointed out ...". It is a pity that you do not check it. I have not inserted it into the article.
• Trahelliven: "Perhaps Ykantor might redraft the paragraph with these comments". Thank you. It might be a good idea to extend this paragraph, but at the moment, the problem is limited to a sentence that was deleted (for a good reason) and should be un deleted now (again, for a good reason). Ykantor (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

to Trahelliven: All your points are explained (In my opinion). Will you please undelete the sentence? Or accept that I will undelete it? Ykantor (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven:you deleted the ref's, and next week someone will delete the remained unsupported sentences?

The Diff page

1. You deleted these references, and as a by product you produced unsupported sentences. It could happen that someone will delete those unsupported sentences during the next week. Does the references deletion make sense?
   1. ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>
   2. ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>
   3. ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>
   4. ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>
      
2. You deleted the end of this sentence:"but rejected by Arab governments and the Arab community as a whole", which changed the meaning. The Arab league and the AHC rejections are omitted. Do you think that this omission is improving the article? Does this omission make sense?

Trahelliven: Why did you deleted a wp:rs?

The Diff page.

Your reason:"A self serving Israeli memorandum to the UNGA is not an appropriate reference for the Arab position on Jerusalem".

Your reason is incorrect.

Why did you deleted a wp:rs? Ykantor (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: Please read WP:TERSE. why to complicate a simple term?

The Diff page

Your reason: "Deleted quote which refers to the Partition Plan in resolution 181(II) The text in the article says 'opposed ANY form of partition'. Presumably a reference can be found on the attitude of the Arabs as opposed to their governments.)"

It is not the first time that you try to complicate a simple term. I will appreciate it if you stop doing it. You ask for a reference for the Arab people opinion "as opposed to their governments" ! Say we hypothetically find a wp:rs who says that 80% of the Egyptians rejected the partition. What should we do next?

Before you removed the references ,it was clear that Arab governments, the Arab league and the AHC rejected the partition. Does not it means that we can justifiably and plainly say that the Arabs rejected the partition? -- ‎Ykantor

Those among the Arabs who might have supported some form of partition (such as some of the Nashashibis) had been pretty effectively marginalized and silenced by November 1947. Abdullah of Transjordan supported the idea in private discussions (always assuming that the Arab state under the partition plan would be firmly under his control), but never made a public statement of support (and his private flirtations with moderation were probably a large part of the reason why he ended up getting assassinated). If those who might have been in favor of some form of partition were afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled as traitors, then hypothetical speculative retroactive opinion polls are really quite irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, AnonMoos , I fully agree with you. It is really amazing to be asked for a reference for the Arab people opinion "as opposed to their governments" ! Ykantor (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>

I deleted this reference because the quotation comes from a document described on page 49 of the Selected Documents as Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. It is true that it contains quotes from other documents. The Memorandum is hardly RS. The quotes within it should be separately cited.

The deletion of the other quotes 1-3 are adequately explained. The deletions stay. Trahelliven (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• The wp:rs is the Lapidot book, and not the original text. Anyway, I will check it.
• I provided the Diff page in which you have not explained at all the deletion of the other sources. Is that acceptable? Ykantor (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• If you do not like a source, why will not you using a tag like , instead of deleting the source? Is not it better to comply to Wikipedia policy rather than deleting a source?
• I will appreciate it if you reply next to the question and not somewhere else, like this reply of yours. Ykantor (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Your deletions are not consistent with WP:CANTFIX Ykantor (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>

This has been adequately dealt with in the paragraph commencing Those among the Arabs. There is no RS as to what the Arab community thought as against their leaders.

ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>

It is not that the UN document is unreliable; it is just not a source for the proposition in the article. The UN document says that the Arabs opposed this partition, but the article says that The Arabs opposed any form of partition.

ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>

The reference refers to Jamal Husseini, but the article generalizes from the remark made by that one individual. Again, it is not that the reference is not a Reliable Source for the proposition in the article; it is not a source at all.

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>

Ykantor has indicated that he will check it.

Trahelliven (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52. I have checked and should not be deleted. This is a quote of an RS (Lapidot book) which id quoting an official U.N document. your claim that this U.N document is based on a Jewish agency document, is not relevant. You are right in asking to specifically say what is the source of Lapidot quote, and I will add it.
• concerning your reasons for the 3 other deleted quotes, are not acceptable. You claim that those quotes partially support the article. If so, you could have asked for more support, but not to delete the supposedly partial supports.
• This is not the first time that you are not replying to my other points.
• Will you cooperate a further discussion in WP:DRN ? Ykantor (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52

We need to take this one step at a time.

The quote contains the following words:-

The [Partition Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly.

I could not find the words in the General Assembly document of 16 February 1949 or on page 52 of the Lapidot book. Can you please tell me from where they come? Trahelliven (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stick to facts

Wikipedia has massive problems when dealing with politically charged subjects. The best bet is to strictly operate as an encyclopedia should, stick to facts and leave out needless interpretations. In the section on the Jewish reaction a needless citation was made to a single revisionist historian who claimed that the Jewish acceptance of the UN partition plan was supposedly "tactical." It is absolutely ridiculous to selectively cite one historian with one idiosyncratic point of view and claim that this is fact. The reference was pure propaganda; an effort to muddle the fact that the Jews did accept the plan. It may be one thing if you could cite an historical consensus. But to cite just a single historian with a single questionable interpretation is not factual and has no business being incorporated into this article. I'm sick of seeing these articles degenerate into propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.19.122 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this snippet has been the subject of long discussions which you may want to have a look at before suggesting we remove it. You may add material from other historians who also think so, of course, if it bothers you that we only cite one. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The basis facts are that A, B, C and D expressed support for Partition and W, X, Y and Z expressed opposition to Partition. Further basis facts are that sometime later A and B, and W and X expressed different views. Whether they all at any one time expressed what they genuinely believed only God knows.

Official Catholic doctrine is that artificial contraception is wrong. You might be tempted to say,Catholics do not believe in artificial contraception. If that is the case, why does Italy have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe? Trahelliven (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

---

172.254.19.122 -- I have some sympathy for your concerns, and I do agree that such wording should be kept out of the lead summary at the top of the article. However: 1) Tacticality is not necessarily dishonesty, and in fact tacticality can be a perfectly respectable strategy to concede something which is of less immediate vital practical importance in order to receive something which has far more true importance. (The Arabs might be much better off now if they had employed a little more tacticality over the decades, in place of rigid inflexible maximalism and the valuing of abstract metaphysical political philosophy over immediate pragmatic gains...). 2) Even if not all Jewish leaders in late 1947 and early 1948 were tactical in their acceptance, some of them were, probably enough of them that it might have been difficult to come to a community consensus if there hadn't been a bit of tacticality involved... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)