Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Decisions refer to UN resolutions

Judge Elias said that it was clear that the recommendations contained in General Assembly resolutions regarding the matters mentioned in Article 18(2) become binding decisions once they are adopted by two-thirds of the members, and that other important decisions are decided by a simple majority according to article 18(3). Judge Hersh Lauterpacht makes the very same argument in the opinion he wrote for the Jewish Agency regarding this resolution that is cited in article. Both men said the decision was binding on the UN organization as a whole.

The UN Charter does not mention resolutions. It mentions decisions and recommendations. Hersh Lauterpacht said this resolution was a decision, a determination, a proclamation, and that the General Assembly was "entitled to decree the contested legal issues involved in partition" without asking for an Opinion of the International Court of Justice.

A lawyer by profession, Tzipi Livni received her law degree from Bar-Ilan University. She also describes the resolution as a decree and decision:

"True, there is a national conflict between us, whose just resolution is to give expression to the national aspirations of each of the nations in its own state. This is exactly the principle determined 60 years ago, after years of bloodshed between the residents of this country - the principle of two states for two peoples: one - a Jewish state, as decreed by the UN resolution, and the other - an Arab state.

The decision to establish the State of Israel alongside an Arab state was meant to provide a response to the past conflict; it is not what created the present conflict. The decision did not determine who was more in the right, but rather what would lead to a life of peace between the peoples. [1]

There are more than enough published sources that explain the use of the term decision. harlan (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- it was largely a "decision" to propose a potential possible agreement to the two sides. Since one of the sides rejected the agreement (in fact vehemently spurning and scorning it with abundant vituperative contumely), the great majority of the provisions of the proposed agreement never came into force. Anything else would raise the spectre of "double dipping", "taking two bites at the apple", "having your cake and eating it too", or whatever else you want to call it. AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "agreement to the two sides" Neither side was required to co-sign the others Declaration of Independence. Independence by its very nature, is unilateral. 'agreeable to the two sides' would be more accurate. However, neither party was required to accept a non-binding resolution.

"the great majority of the provisions of the proposed agreement never came into force" Uh? So some did come into force, but as the Arabs rejected it as was their right over a non-binding resolution, what were the parts that did come into force?

In fact: Israel Declared according to the legal requirements of declaring statehood (referred to in UNGA res 181) and; enshrined UNGA res 181 in the Declaration[2]. It did come into force in respect to Israel's Sovereign Independence. Proof - Israel exists as an Independent Sovereign State, was recognized as asked[3] and admitted into the UN as such, before ever claiming any territory[4] beyond the frontiers recommended by UNGA res 181[5] ... talknic (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "vituperative contumely" redundant? Is there any contumely that is not vituperative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.243.155 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's not really a good thing, but sometimes I rhetorically pile on semi-redundant thesaurus quasi-synonyms in a sarcastic manner when people seem to me to be somewhat perversely denying the obvious (in another discussion, I once used the phrase "marital matrimonial nuptial conjugal connubial hymeneal epithalamial symbolism" )... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Was bold

It was really a standing embarrassment that 1948 Arab–Israeli War had a clearer overall summary of the main issues and events of the partition plan in less than a tenth of the space which this article takes up, so I applied some radical surgery to the lead section at the top (moving some extended material less directly relevant to a quick understanding of the main issues down to other sections below in the article). AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed from Lede for discussion - NPOV

The article cites a number of opposing viewpoints from reliable sources which say that this statement is a myth perpetuated by Zionists. It doesn't belong in the lede. Please attribute it as an opinion and cite your sources in the future.

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. However, the plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

harlan (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can support some of it from sources. Now you are not questioning that the Jews accepted and the Arabs did not, are you? Because there are infinite number of sources for that. Just so we understand. You are questioning the Jewish Agency , the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League?

• "More forthrightly the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine on February 6, 1948, stated that "any attempt by the Jews or any other power or group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of oppression, which will be resisted in self-defense by force." Also on page 393 of this same source:"The Zionists, somewhat reluctantly, accepted the majority plan." If I recall aright, the Arabs walked out.

REF: The MIddle East in World Affairs, George Lenczowski, Cornell University Press ,1962 page 396. quoting from Larry L Leonard "The United Nations and Palestine' International Conciliation Oct, 1949 Stellarkid (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Just as the Palestinian Arab leaders had rejected the Peel Commisions similar proposal ten years before, their political leadership, the Arab Higher Committee, rejected these proposals for an Arab and a Jewish State. The Jewish Agency, however, accepted the UNSCOP proposals subject to further discussions on the actual boundary lines, even though the new plan would keep a quarter of the Jews of Palestine outside the area of Jewish statehood. " pg 149 Martin Gilbert's Israel Stellarkid (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, if there are an infinite number of sources, then you should have no trouble attributing the opinion to one of them. Here is an example of opposing viewpoints from the article:

Mehran Kamrava says Israeli sources often cite Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection of the U.N. partition plan as an example of the Zionists' desire for peaceful diplomacy and the Arabs' determination to wage war on the Jews. But he notes that more recent documentary analysis and interpretation of events leading up to and following the creation of the state of Israel fundamentally challenged many of the "myths" of what had actually happened in 1947 and 1948."[77] Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.[78]

harlan (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Harlan, you were unclear as to just what you considered a myth. And in fact, I did put up a quote from George Lenczowski saying just that. page 393 "The Zionists, somewhat reluctantly, accepted the majority plan." This is not an Israeli source but a college text. But since you challenged me, here are a few more you can see for yourself. No myth. Just the facts. Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine by Sami Hadawi Pg 77-Internation history of the twentieth century and beyond. Antony Best pg 120-The Israel-Palestine conflict: one hundred years of war -- James Gelvin page 128-- As for the Zionists planning for peace, I seriously doubt anyone believed that. They were not fools after all. btw, will you now revert your removal? If you do, I will add these sources tomorrow. Stellarkid (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not going to revert the removal, because Wikipedia neither endorses nor rejects a particular point of view. This statement shouldn't have been presented in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia writer. It can go in the article, of course, but needs to be presented as an opinion of one of the persons or groups who subscribe to the view. harlan (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored the information. Since it appears in the article it is appropriate to summarize it in the lead. See WP:LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article also contains the views of Kamrava and Flapan mentioned above. You cannot intentionally use the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to reject a viewpoint, while characterizing your edit as summarizing the article's contents per WP:LEAD. harlan (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming your two sources are not FRINGE (haven't had the time to inspect them thoroughly, although it seems Kamraya isn't specifically saying what you think he's specifically saying), feel free to add them to the lead rather than remove information you don't like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG is right-on. It doesn't say what Harlan says it says and should be removed as introducing an element of doubt that is not appropriate, in fact just wrong. He states "the Zionists, who quickly accepted it, but was rejected by the outraged Palestinians." (pg 79) and "The Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan became the subject of great historical controversy, often cited by subsequent Israelis sources as an example of the Zionists' desire for peaceful diplomacy and the Arabs' determination to wage war on the Jews." (pg 81) All he is calling a myth is the one that Arabs were determined to wage war (which Lenczowski above puts the lie to: "the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine on February 6, 1948, stated that "any attempt by the Jews or any other power or group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of oppression, which will be resisted in self-defense by force") and that the Zionists "desired peaceful diplomacy". Most historians agree that the Zionists were realists and well aware that they had best ready themselves for war. This is the classic Straw man argument, first by Kamrava, and a further step removed when presented here by you. [6]Stellarkid (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We've already discussed this issue before. The article contains a section which explains that many sources, including Ben Gurion, Flapan, Morris, Khalidi, Ben Ami, say the Jewish leadership's acceptance was merely pragmatic and part of a tactical plan to take control of the entire territory. I've restored the Ben Gurion material and added Morris, Ben Ami, and Kalidis analysis.

Kamrava introduces the element of doubt himself by quoting Flapan and saying that between December 1947 and May of 1948 the state of Palestine was extinguished, and a new country, the state of Israel, was created in its place. The UN Plan for the Future Government of Palestine didn't call for Palestine to be extinguished, or for Israel to take its place. harlan (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arab 1947 rejection

Wikiproject Alternate History logo. Unfortunately, this article discusses history as it actually happened in the real world.

Harlan, it was established at extreme length through many tiresome toilsome troublesome tedious monotonous discussions in the talk page archives for this article that your grounds for your claim that the Arabs somehow supposedly did not reject the UN partition plan simply don't amount to much -- and do not come remotely close to overturning the established consensus of mainstream history accepted by reputable scholars in the field. Not even you dare to deny the clear and plain fact that all Arab and Muslim states in the United Nations in 1947 voted against UNGA 181 on November 29th, 1947 -- something which actually destroys most of your argument before you even start making it. What you have left is a random collection of unimpressive dribs and drabs of things which might speculatively hypothetically have been significant in some science-fictional alternative historical timeline of the Bring the Jubilee type -- but which in actual factual history as it unfolded in the real world which we live in, does not do anything at all to change the fact that in 1947 the Arabs in their official public pronouncements (released by Arab governments, or by the Arab league, or by recognized representative Palestine Arab political structures such as the Arab Higher Committee) uniformly and unanimously REJECTED the UN-proposed partition plan. No furtive sub-rosa covert tactical accommodations between Israel and Abdullah of Transjordan, or private statements by members of the Nashashibi family (consistently on the losing side of internecine political power struggles during the whole 30 years of the British mandate) can do anything to change in the slightest degree this basic reality of Arab official public rejection of the plan.

Therefore any revisions to the introductory section of this article which have the effect of turning historical fact into historical nonsense will simply be reverted on sight until you can come up with something a lot better than anything you've come up with so far -- and your personal abstract hypothetical metaphysical legal-philosophical introspective meditative speculations on primary source documents are not very relevant, no matter how much you increase their word count. AnonMoos (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning:

• Partition was recommended because the Jewish leaders wouldn't accept any other kind of solution, such as a binational one.
• The Jewish leaders wanted partition, but they had no intention of abiding by the proposed territorial allocations. Formally, then, they accepted the plan, but, informally, they didn't (note that most of the fighting in the Arab-Israeli War happened outside the area proposed for a Jewish state).
• Non-mainstream Jewish groups such as the Revisionists were against partition; they wanted a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And why did the Jews reject a binational state? In significant part because the treatment of minorities in the surrounding Arab states, and the history of the preceding thirty years of intercommunal relations within the British mandate, persuaded them that they would not receive any kind of tender treatment (not to mention basic rights) if they ever found themselves in the power of Arabs. The Jews remembered very well that the first thing that Iraq did after receiving its "independence" in 1932 was to celebrate by massacring Christians. In the context of 1945-1947, it really would be quite grotesquely bizarre to either expect or demand that Jews would trustingly put themselves into the hands of pro-Nazi war criminal Haj Amin al-Husseini (which is what a "binational" state would amount to at that point).

And the whole point about the Jabotinskyites was that the mainstream Palmach-Laborite leadership of the Yishuv was able to restrain them after they went too far (see Altalena incident). Ability to restrain extremists has a lot to do with why Jews got a state there 60 years ago, while Arabs still haven't... AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Formally, the UN Journal says the representative of the Jewish Agency found the exclusion of Western Jerusalem from the Jewish State unacceptable, but he said he would recommend acceptance of the plan (to Vaad Leumi), subject to that and other territorial and constitutional reservations. Israel never adopted a constitution which guarantees equal rights, as required by the Chapter of the resolution on Religious and Minority Rights, and they never accepted the borders for Jerusalem.

I've added a section on the continuing relevance of the resolution. I've never seen anything in Anonmoos posts that will make it off the talk page. He is issuing no edit orders as usual. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that Anonmoos has never discussed my edits at the Wikipedia Fringe Theory Noticeboard. I'd be happy to discuss his there if he ever publishes the sources. harlan (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan -- your points on the continuing relevance of the resolution (if they actually have any real current legal force, something which is by no means obvious) would mainly further establish the legal legitimacy of Israel, since Israel would seem to have by far the best claim to be the legal successor of the British mandate of Palestine (as discussed at Talk:All-Palestine_Government#Israel_would_seem_to_have_a_much_better_claim_to_be_the_legal_successor_of_the_British_Palestine_mandate_than_anything_on_the_Arab_side). And it's rather pointless of you to loosely toss around semi-random epithets, when you are the king of "original synthesis", continually coming up with new and innovative personal theories to try to explain away certain basic facts of the consensus view of history accepted by mainstream reputable scholars (such as that in 1947 the Arabs REJECTED UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the subject of this article). AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos on a number of occasions you have raised the off-topic issue of "the legitimacy of Israel" in articles about the territory allocated for an Arab state in Palestine, and claimed that "Israel would seem to have by far the best claim to be the legal successor of the British mandate of Palestine." But you have never cited any published sources that can be included in the articles. One of the published authorities cited in Whiteman's Digest of Internatioal Law regarding the legal status and disposition of the Palestine Mandate was "Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, D.P. O'Connell author, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, The Law of State Succession". Lauterpacht was a legal advisor to the Jewish Agency during the Mandate [7] and advised the People's Council of the Jewish Provisional Government on issues involved in establishing the State of Israel and on the UN Partition Plan. [8] Whiteman cited O'Connell's analysis of the law of state succession in connection with concessions and a case brought by Arab depositors after the termination of the mandate for accounts payable at the Allenby Square Bank in Palestine. In addition, the "Succession of States" cites Palestine in a number of other examples on the law of succession. On pages 10-11 O'Connell explains that Israel denied that it was a successor to any previous government. O'Connell writes that Israel came into existence by its own act and that resolution 181 contained provisions regulating the change of sovereignty which were never implemented. "A conference was held at Tel Aviv in July 1949 between Israel and Great Britain for the purpose of settling disputed questions arising from the change of sove­reignty. There was not, it was alleged, an organized substitution of one State for another to which rules of international law would apply. Israel came into existence by its own act and exercised sovereignty without having, it transferred from any predecessor." On page 178 O'Connell said that "Article 28 of the Mandate and the UN resolution of 29 November 1947 provided that the successor government that followed the mandatory administration should honor the treaties and financial obligations incurred by the mandatory during the period of the mandate. However at a conference convened in Tel Aviv on 4 July 1949 Israel said that it regarded itself in no sense a successor of the Palestine administration." harlan (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right -- I don't have any sources for this particular point. I merely checked off some of the criteria mentioned at Succession of states with respect to both Israel and the various shifting entities on the Arab side (i.e. the "All-Palestine Government" -- which was not a government, existed only on a tiny fraction of Palestine, and lasted only ten years before even Nasser grew tired of it and unilaterally abolished it -- the Transjordanian annexation of the West Bank, recognized by very few other countries, etc. etc.) and drew my own conclusions. The point of the exercise was not to formulate any inventive personal theories of my own, but rather to simply come up with a pointed skeptical question exposing some of the weaknesses of your baroque hyper-elaborated spinning of abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative personal theories. For my method of using simple skeptical questions to cut through elaborate nonsense, refer back to my remarks of "12:25, 19 April 2010"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Who says the AHC was the Palestinian leadership? Sandra Berliant Kadosh analyzed United States policy toward the West Bank in 1948, based largely on the Foreign Relations Documents of the United States. She noted that the US government believed that the most satisfactory solution regarding the disposition of the greater part of Arab Palestine would be incorporation in Transjordan and that the State Department approved the Principle underlying the Jericho resolutions. Kadosh said that the Jericho delegates claimed to represent 90 percent of the population, and that they ridiculed the AHC Gaza government. They asserted that it represented only its eighty-odd members. See United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252.

The United States refused to recognize the AHC government because it was setup without consulting the wishes of the Palestinian people. This article already says: harlan (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

During an Arab League Political Committee meeting in February 1948, the Mufti, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni asked for control of all affairs in Palestine. The Political Committee rejected all of his proposals on the basis that the Arab Higher Committee did not represent the Palestinian people. The Leagues' affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC.

The Arab Higher Committee was not a real "government", and I don't know of anybody who has ever seriously argued that it was a real government. However, the most directly-involved external parties (i.e. Britain, the United Nations, and the Arab League) treated it as a channel of communications which was at least somewhat useful for the purpose of conveying whether the Palestinian Arab leadership wished to accept or reject the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. If the Husseini faction was not truly representative of Palestinian Arab public opinion, then something needed to be done about that in 1947 or 1948 (hell, things might have turned out a whole lot better all around if the British had just refrained from appointing him Mufti of Jerusalem way back in 1917 1921!), because it's extremely pointless and useless for us to try to imaginatively construct hypothetical speculative retroactive opinion polls here in 2010. In any case, denigrating the Arab Higher Committee does very little to provide any evidence for your so-far unsupported claims, because what you really would need to find is public open pronouncements between November 1947 and May 1948 accepting UN General Assembly resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 issued by a Palestinian Arab representative body of comparable recognized status to the Arab Higher Committee. Good luck looking for it, because all indications are that it doesn't exist! (And low-voiced private mutterings by members of the Nashashibi family don't count.) AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Take an arbitrary break

Another Strawman, and fringe theory, by Harlan. If you think the AHC did not represent the Palestinians, I suggest you go edit the Arab Higher Committee article with the appropriate RS. Stellarkid (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Stellarkid, Anonmoos is citing a reference to the Arab resistance in a Britannica article by Ian J. Bickerton. This partition plan article currently cites "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,(4th Edition), Ian J. Bickerton, and Carla L. Klausner, Prentice Hall, 2001, ISBN 0-13-090303-5, page 88, which says that few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. Bickerton says for that reason many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state. It also cites Chaim Weizmann and the Egyptian UN representative who both stated that the neighboring Arab States had no legal standing to represent or interfere in Palestinian affairs.

This article currently sites the material from "Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948", By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991,ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290, which says the Arab League did not think the AHC represented the Palestinian people and Secretary Lovett's memo from the FRUS which says the AHC government had been setup without consulting the wishes of the Palestinian people. Sandra Berliant also cited that assessment - 'Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, page 1448 [9]

The State of Palestine article cites Sandra Berliant Kadosh's article from the Journal of Jewish Social Studies which says the AHC Gaza government only represented its eighty odd members. The All-Palestine government article is based upon an account by Avi Shlaim, which said it had no popular support, and that it was just a feeble attempt to counter King Abdullah.

John Baggot Glubb, the commander of the Arab Legion, wrote in "A Soldier With The Arabs", Harper New York, 1957, pages 63-66 that British Foreign Secretary Bevin had given the green light for the Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state. The Prime Minister of Transjordan explained that Abdullah had received hundreds of petitions from Palestinian notables requesting protection upon the withdrawal of the British forces. Eugene Rogan says that those petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in "The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)". see Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in "The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948", By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Avi Plascov says that Abdullah contacted the Nashashibi opposition, local mayors, mukhars, those opposed to the Husaynis, and opposition members of the AHC. Plascov said that the Palestinian Congresses were conducted in accordance with prevailing Arab custom. He also said that contrary to the widely held belief outside Jordan the representatives did reflect the feelings of a large segment of the population. See "The Palestinian Refugees In Jordan 1948-1957, Routledge, 1981, ISBN 0-7146-3120-5, pages 11-16

Joseph Massad said that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001),ISBN 0-231-12323-X, page 229 and in 1978 the State Department Historian published a memorandum in which the US stated that the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people, and that the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

If you want to challenge those sources at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard be my guest. harlan (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your method of argument seems to be throw out as much stuff as you can and hope that some of it sticks. Much of the above has zero to do with the issue under consideration. Eg, whether the United States accepted or did not accept Jordanian sovereignty, whether or not there were letters documenting that "Palestinian notables" had written letters asking for protection etc. As I said this theory belongs first and foremost at the Arab Higher Committee article. It is not for us to argue that the Palestinian Arabs did in fact accept this partition. That is revisionist history, and not a case appropriate to be made at this article. It is certainly true that the Palestinian Arabs would have liked to have had control of the area but they were not in a position to maintain it militarily against the greater force of Jordan and/or the Arab League. Was there a contingent that argued for it? I don't know, maybe. However, Best says (p. 120)

"The Arabs, who had earlier decided to boycott the UNSCOP inquiry, rejected both proposals. These decisions ultimately deprived the Palestinians [Arabs] of an opportunity to make their case and to influence the debate, as well as the subsequent vote, in the UN General Assembly.... Added to the fact that the Palestinian Arabs held on to their rejectionist position and that neighbouring Arab countries vowed to destroy any Jewish state...." - my bolds

Stellarkid (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, you brought up the topic of keeping related articles in {{sync}}. I am summarizing information contained in this article or articles that are linked to it that isn't reflected in the lede. For example the lede contains an unsourced statement that says "During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor." Baggot Glub said that Bevin okayed the use of the Arab Legion to take control of the territory set aside for the Arab State. The Arab Legion had been routinely employed for law enforcement inside Palestine during the mandate.

The lede also contains the unsourced statement "five Arab armies crossed into the former Mandate as the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.", but does not mention that Israeli militias had crossed into the territory of the Arab state during the transition period. Glubb, Rogan, Morris, Khalidi, and a host of others have published accounts based upon the UN Security Council records, the documents in the Foreign Relations of the United States series, and the Israeli State archives which indicate that the neighboring Arab states were coming to the aid of Palestinians on account of atrocities and ethnic cleansing operations that were being carried out by the Israeli militias. harlan (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the boundaries between the British Mandate of Palestine and the surrounding Arab states were international boundaries. Whatever the proposed partition line between the proposed Jewish state under UNGA 181 and the proposed Arab state under UNGA 181 was in 1948, it was not remotely comparable in status to an accepted established international boundary. And the boundaries of the Jewish state under UNGA 181 and the boundaries of the Arab state under UNGA 181 were militarily completely undefendable (partly intentionally so), so if the Jews had not crossed over, then it's probable that they would have been "thrown into the sea" in relatively short order. And finally, it's really pathetically absurd to expect or demand that the Jews of 1948 should treat the UNGA 181 partition lines as sacrosanct, when the Arabs of 1948 were loudly claiming that those same lines had no legal force whatsoever, and were making a parading public show of rejecting UNGA 181 with lofty contempt. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, if Bickerton felt that such sentiments were truly significant, then he certainly didn't say so in his Encyclopedia Britannica article section. In any case, as I previously said on 24 August 2009 in the talk archives: "Scattered and isolated pockets of moderate sentiment strewn here and there across the landscape cannot sign a treaty or treaty-like agreement -- it takes someone with recognized authority or an official position to sign an agreement, and everybody in 1947-1948 on the Arab side who had recognized authority or official positions unanimously REFUSED to sign UNGA 181." -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos and NMMNG, Ian Bickerton, Wahlid Khalidi, and Rashid Kahlidi are contributors to Encyclopedia Britannica, they are not its editors. This article already contains material from reliable sources which explain that within hours of Israel's admission to the UN, the Arab states and Israel did sign the Lausanne Protocol. It established the partition map from the November 29, 1947 UN resolution as the basis for negotiations. Ahmad Shuqayri, who went on to become head of the PLO, was a member of the Syrian delegation to the Lausanne Conference. harlan (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see your point about the Lusanne conference. That the Arabs agreed to use the partition plan as a basis for negotiations after they lost the war? From the time partition was first proposed in the 1930s, and up until it was obvious they won't be beating Israel militarily, the Arabs completely rejected partition of any kind, including the Partition Plan. This is a fact. Which I'm pretty damn sure you're well aware of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, we went over Lausanne in the talk page archives. First of all, even if the Arabs had agreed to UNGA 181 in 1949 (which they didn't), that would have done very little to modify the fact that they rejected it when it was actually on the table (in 1947 and early 1948). A lot of things had happened between 1947 and 1949. In any case, as far as I can tell, at Lausanne all aspects of UNGA 181 except the map were disregarded, while the map of UNGA 181 was merely treated as the non-binding starting point for negotiations -- and the parties at Lausanne would have been free to re-draw the map in any way that they chose if they had been able to agree on a final settlement treaty. Of course, the parties at Lausanne didn't come to a final settlement agreement because the Arabs refused to recognize the existence or sovereignty of Israel in any manner whatsoever (except as de facto belligerents whom they refused to directly negotiate with). AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest round of personal accusations

AnonMoos this conversation needs to move on to resolution. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy say "The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies." The article explains that according to Chaim Weizmann, the neighboring Arab states have no legal standing to either represent or to interfere in the affairs of Palestine under the terms of the LoN mandate. The General Assembly has recognized the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine as being in-line with resolution 181(II) and that it was made in the exercise of an inalienable right. The ICJ affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to determine their own political status without any outside interference; the right to their territory; and to their State as envisioned in this and other resolutions. That information needs to be summarized in the lede.

You've posted a number of unsourced and unverifiable theories about "second bites of the apple", "the law of the jungle", "dishonest historical Arab propaganda tactics", and completely irrelevant stereotypes about Arabs living in "Egypt and Mashreq countries" that violate Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies:

• The Arabs rejected UNGA 181, and refused to sign off on the proposed agreement, yet they are supposed to benefit from all its provisions?

• Israel would seem to have a much better claim to be the legal successor of the British Palestine mandate than anything on the Arab side

• Recent_additions harlan (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, none of this would have arisen or ever occurred in the first place if you you would simply STOP TRYING TO CHANGE HISTORY and stop trying to pretend that something which the CONSENSUS OF ALL MAINSTREAM REPUTABLE SCHOLARS IN THE FIELD says happened (the Arab rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947) somehow supposedly hypothetically abstractly metaphysically theoretically did not happen.

I'm really not impressed by the substance of your complaints (such as it is), either -- in response to your web of innovative personal theories, and extended original synthesis of introspective speculations, from time to time I ask some simple basic pointed skeptical questions to try to clear through the fog of endless verbiage and rhetoric to get to the heart of the matter, and I certainly criticize your method and style of argument and debate where appropriate. But what I DON'T do, which YOU seem to do fairly often, is resort to sleazy slurs and smears and irrelevant personal attacks, which have no relationship to the issue under discussion, and no relationship to anything which has been previously been said in the discussion. In your remarks directly above, your use of the word "stereotypes" is an attempt to conduct a vicious personal attack on me similar to your past vicious personal attacks on me, but this time using a veiled dog-whistle codeword. It has no absolutely no relationship to the topic of discussion, or anything I said previously, but would appear to spring solely from your desire to sleazily smear and slur me, when you've run out of any ability to substantively reply to the points I've raised.

In any case, it's a little unfortunate for you if some of the pithy colloquial expressions which I use grate on your ears -- but these expressions provide a welcome break from the abstract metaphysical pseudo-philosophico-legal verbiage which you're so font of, and they're often quite relevant to revealing the basic issues being discussed with respect to improving articles. For example, the expressions "double-dipping", "taking two bites at the apple", and "having your cake and eating it too" make no pretensions to being high-falutin' pseudo-legal terminology, but they expose an essential weakness or absurdity in material which you have added to the article (or tried to add to the article) in the past -- namely, that in 1947-48 the Arabs rejected the proposed United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine agreement, and they complied with none of the obligations which would have been binding on them if this UNGA 181 agreement had come into force (such as borders freely open to trade, respecting Jewish holy sites, etc.), yet according to you they are somehow supposedly still entitled to the benefit of all the provisions of the proposed agreement which would have benefited them (if, counterfactually, they had signed off on it)!!! I'm not versed enough in the legal doctrine of "estoppel" etc. to be able to phrase this in correct legal terminology, but dressing it up in legal terminology really wouldn't add anything of substance in exposing the absurdity of what you've been trying to put in the article.

And "law of the jungle withdrawal" is my pithy little expression for something which you've continually evaded and avoided confronting in any manner whatsoever in the past, because it comes close to being a fatal flaw for many of your pet little personal theories -- namely that the British conspicuously refrained from handing over authority or territory to any party when they withdrew in May 1948, and instead made a deliberate decision to let the Jews and Arabs fight for it.

Similarly, over on Talk:All-Palestine Government, I asked a basic simple pointed skeptical question to try to break through your endless floods of abstract rhetorical verbiage, and get to the heart of the matter with respect to some of the material which you were adding or proposing to add to that article. I simply asked you whether you could come up with one meaningful substantive non-speculative non-hypothetical reason why any Arab "legal entity" has a better claim to be the legal successor of the British Mandate of Palestine than Israel does -- since according to most accepted standard criteria governing legal successor-state relationships, Israel would appear to have by far the better claim. Your complete inability to come up with any meaningful relevant cogent substantive answer to most of my simple skeptical questions shows that my simple skeptical questions are serving a purpose with respect to clarifying issues in discussing improvements to the article (and keeping junk off the article!). AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest round of dubious additions

Harlan, a lot of water flowed under the bridge between 1937 and 1947, so material about Ben Gurion's attitudes towards a speculative hypothetical idea of partition in 1937 would not appear to have much direct relevance to the actual concrete partition plan in 1947, unless you can present a source which shows there is some real susbtantive relevance -- especially since Ben Gurion was almost certainly influenced by the Peel Plan being the latest thing in the news. AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos As usual you deleted citations to authorities on the subject, who say there is substantive relevance, and then ask me to present you some such sources. You've introduced a number of flagrantly argumentative statements into the lede and into the article, and this material presents an opposing viewpoint. I'm not going to engage you in a debate (here) over the existence of an "authorized version" of history. So, you can drop the arm waving personal attacks which claim that I'm "rewriting history", along with the claims that this is "beat-up-on-the-Jews material".[10] I'm citing material written by Cambridge and Oxford-trained Zionists with PhDs in History. They are not only discussing a letter that Ben Gurion himself selected for publication, they are discussing his views on partition in the mid-to-late 1940s. It is unlikely that he was talking about the Peel plan, since he and the Zionist Executive had rejected that proposal. In any event Ben Ami reports that he repeated the same remarks in 1946-1947.

• Wahlid Kahlidi wrote "As early as March 1946 Haganah had told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "If you accept the Zionist solution but are unable or unwilling to enforce it, please do not interfere, and we ourselves will secure its implementation." page 10-11 "Plan Dalet Revisited," Journal of Palestine Studies 69 (Fall 1988): 3-70 Plan Dalet Revisited

• Wahlid Kahlidi wrote that partition was simply the first step in Ben Gurion's plan for Palestine. According to Kahlidi, the official Hagganah history says that in the summer of 1937, ten years before the UN Partition plan David Ben Gurion directed the Haganah Commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Avnir, to draw up a plan to take over the country after the British withdrawal. See Walid Khalidi, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 5-21, page 7 Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution

• Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. See "Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999", by Benny Morris, Knopf, 1999, ISBN: 0679421203, page 138 [11]

• Morris cited a letter that Ben Gurion wrote to his son Amos in 1937 which said that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said "What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish." He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country and complete the historic task of redeeming the entire land with or without the consent of the Arabs. See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153.

• Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the "Field Battalions" under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the "Avner Plan", which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan D. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. See Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli-Arab tragedy, By Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN: 019518158, page 17

• Yossi Katz wrote an entire book which said that, after the Jewish Executive rejected the Peel Plan, they staffed hundreds of people to develop a plan of their own. He says the groundwork on the Jewish Agency's 1937 Partition Plan was not an isolated episode. It had long term implications and significant effects on the proposal, advanced by the very same Jewish leaders, to Partition Palestine in the 1940s and on the initial steps taken after the establishment of the State of Israel. See the last chapter "Postscrpt or Prelude?" in "Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era", Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, ISBN-10: 0714644013, pages 177-194

• Shlomo Ben-Ami's material is very relevant to the discussion about "Zionist acceptance of the Partition plan" From See Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli-Arab tragedy, By Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN: 019518158, page 34:

"The endorsement of partition along the lines of Resolution 181 by Ben-Gurion was essentially a tactical move. 'Does anybody really think that the original meaning of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, and indeed, that of the millenarian yearning of the Jewish people, was not that of establishing a Jewish state in the whole of Eretz-Israel?' he had asked rhetorically in a speech to the People's Council on 22 May 1947. His acceptance: of the principle of partition, he explained a week later, was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority."

"A week later he pledged to Mapai's Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by Resolution 181 were by no means final. It was then that Yigal Allon said ...'the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders ... the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. ... We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.'"

"The paradox of the winter of 1947 was that the Jews, who accepted Resolution 181 - the Jewish public acclaimed its endorsement by the UN with genuine outbursts of jubilation - were ready and well deployed to face a war should this be the outcome, and the Arabs. who rejected the Resolution out of hand and made no secret of their intention to subvert it, were not at all prepared for war. Ben-Gurion, who upon his appointment as the 'defence minister' of the Jewish Agency in 1946 made it clear that the time had now arrived for 'a showdown of force, a Jewish military showdown, had been for some time meticulously preparing for a war he was convinced, at least ever since the Arab Revolt, was inevitable." harlan (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So like we've been saying, the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it. Consensus at last. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There exists also this famous quote from Ben Gurion: "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine " source. While the Zionists went on record to accept the partition, they were intent on breaking it. It's therefore a tad misleading to say the Jews (Zionists to be exact) accepted it. --Dailycare (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent source. A Reliable Source par-excellence. Thanks for showing us where you get your info. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, It is like we've been saying, it was a myth that the Jews accepted the plan. Ben Ami says they were planning on expanding the borders by force in May of 1947. That was six months before their proposal was adopted, and a year before the partition was supposed to go into effect. There are a range of views on Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection. harlan (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read your own sources. Allow me to quote an example: "The paradox of the winter of 1947 was that the Jews, who accepted Resolution 181 - the Jewish public acclaimed its endorsement by the UN with genuine outbursts of jubilation...". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)

(outdent) It is much more likely that I'll summarize all of the material including the stuff in your ellipses.

That would be great. Please make sure you actually summarize and not just quote extensively POVs you like in order to give the reader a certain impression. This article is full of that sort of thing. I'll fix it when I have a bit of time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Harlan, the Jewish Agency (the recognized organization of the Yishuv leadership) did formally offer its acceptance of UNGA 181 (provisionally, conditioned on the Arabs also accepting the plan, of course -- the Jews never offered to be bound by UNGA 181 unilaterally or unconditionally, regardless of whether the Arabs also signed off on the proposed agreement, as you sometimes seem to imply). So any statement to the contrary is either a mistake or an outright lie. And feel free to accuse Ben Gurion of bad faith based on his reactions to the concrete actual formal UNGA 181 proposal in 1947 -- if you can find solid reliable sourced information which leads to such a conclusion. What you CAN'T legitimately do is accuse Ben Gurion of bad faith in 1947 based on his reactions in 1937 to the Peel Plan, since the 1937 Peel Plan was a very speculative hypothetical plan which differed in MANY, MANY ways from the concrete UNGA 181 proposal in 1947, and a lot of things had happened between 1937 and 1947 (to put it mildly). It would really be best to leave 1937 completely out of it, unless you can find a very specific reputable source which states exactly why 1937 should be considered relevant to 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos I'd suggest you cleanup this talk page and take it down a notch. You asked for sources that show a substantial connection between 1937 and 1947, and I've supplied them. It certainly would NOT be best to leave them out. Please read WP:NOEDIT and WP:TEDIOUS "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. harlan (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- any attempt to present reactions to the Peel Plan in 1937 as somehow supposedly being reactions to the very different UNGA 181 plan in 1947 is simply not factually accurate, and I see very little reason for such historical conflation or historical confusion between the situation in 1937 (which was kind of a low point in a number of ways for the project of building a Jewish homeland) vs. the very different historical situation in 1947, unless it's to try to demonize the Jewish leadership of the Yishuv. In fact, I see little reason to include any lengthy references to 1937 in this article at all -- such material should go into articles which directly discuss the events of 1937 (which this article doesn't). Maybe it's really time for you to "take it down a notch" here, since hundreds of kilobytes of often somewhat redundant repetitive discussions here and in the talk page archives for this article have been generated solely by your attempts to deny basic facts of history -- such as that the recognized Jewish leadership in the Palestine Mandate formally offered to accept the proposed agreement in UNGA 181, while the recognized Arab leadership in the Palestine Mandate rejected UNGA 181 (supported in this by the Arab states). This monotonous persistence in historical revisionism is the very definition of "tedium". (It's remarkable how many times you accuse others of violating Wikipedia policies which you yourself are in violation of -- look up "projection".) AnonMoos (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the Jewish leadership formally offered to accept, but it is also true that they did not sincerely plan to honour the plan. Not all the sources presented relate to 1937. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If Harlan wants to add such material to the article, then it's his responsibility to make sure that the 1937 material is properly subordinated, de-emphasized, and backgrounded in relation to the 1947 material, as is suitable to the subject matter of this article. I really don't know that it's our duty to try to clean up text written by Harlan in which 1937 and 1947 references are confusingly intertwined and intermingled... AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "The plan was rejected by Arabs but tactically accepted by Jewish leaders, who still desired to extend their influence to all of Palestine" in the lead, with a bitmore from this source ((Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli-Arab tragedy, By Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN: 019518158, page 34)) in the "Reactions to the Plan" section? --Dailycare (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's putting someone's claim in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare -- that material could very well go into the body of the article (with slight rephrasing), but in the top section of the article it would seem to place undue emphasis on questioning the motives and honesty of one side only. It kind of implies that the acceptance was merely a complete transparent fraud and sham pretence -- but I really don't think that it was commonly treated that way either by Jews in Palestine or by external parties at the time. The acceptance was "tactical" in a way, but it also demonstrated the reality that the Jews were willing to jump through a number of semi-arbitrary hoops and make various efforts to try to gain a certain degree of international approval, in order to both gain statehood and have that statehood be internationally recognized. The Arabs basically refused to jump through one single hoop. AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG (BTW, why not become a "nice guy" again? I don't get your username), it isn't just "someone's claim". Concerning the motives of the Jewish side, they intended to undo the partition (as in fact they did). How about simply saying that the Arabs refused and the Jews "tactically accepted", without further explanation, in the lead? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish leadership in Palestine in 1947 intended to do whatever it took for the Jewish people to thrive and flourish in Palestine, ideally within a separate sovereign state which would receive international recognition. It's somewhat nonsensical to say that they "undid" the November 19th 1947 partition plan, because the partition plan was never "done" in the first place (i.e. never implemented on the ground). As for the Hagana/Palmach crossing over the theoretical 1947 partition lines in 1948, please look up and read my previous comments of "12:47, 19 April 2010" above. It's certainly true that in 1947 some prominent Jews were hoping in private that the partition plan would fail and not be implemented (because it did not meet their aspirations and/or because the partition plan borders were not militarily defensible against hostile Arab armies). However, anything which appears to create the impression that the Jews in 1947 had long-held deep-laid long-term far-reaching Machiavellian aggressive expansionistic plans, or only agreed to accept the partition proposal for the purpose of maliciously sabotaging it later on, would seem to be greatly simplifying a rather complex situation in a rather problematic way. There was only one way for the Jews' good faith in accepting partition to be truly tested -- for the Arabs to also accept partition, so that subsequent events as they unfolded would have shown who was acting in good faith or in bad faith. However, since that didn't actually happen in real life, scenarios about what might have happened remain rather speculative and counterfactually hypothetical, and should not necessarily be given great prominence in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, are you now writing from sources or your interpretations of them? The source says that the acceptance was a "tactical move". --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a tactical move is not the same thing as a dishonest move, and some of your preferred wording seemed to go a little bit beyond mere tacticality. Why don't we pretty much stick to basic facts in the summary in the lead section at the top of the article, and then delve into more complicated questions of motivations for the actions of the various sides down below in the main body of the article? AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the source says "tactically", so if we say "tactically" then I don't frankly see an issue. My preferred wording for the lead is now simply to say: "The plan was rejected by Arab leaders, but tactically accepted by the Jewish side" and then deal with the details lower down. --Dailycare (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute at all that the acceptance was in part tactical -- but any use of sweeping broad categorical blanket terms which greatly oversimplify a complex situation should probably be avoided, unless some explanation of the relevant nuances and complexities immediately follows. There were certainly some Jewish Yishuv leaders who were not enthusiastic about the specifics of the 1947 UN partition plan at all, and only agreed with the idea of the Jewish Agency offering a formal acceptance of the plan because they knew ahead of time that the Arabs would refuse it -- for some such individuals, their support for formal acceptance of the plan was rather consciously cynical, since they thought it would put the Arabs in the wrong diplomatically or in terms of world opinion ("See, we Jews are willing to compromise; it's those Arabs who are not willing to compromise!") without committing the Jews to any concrete territorial boundaries (since the partition plan would be rejected by the Arabs and so never come into force). However, it would still be greatly oversimplistic and inaccurate to say that all Jews or Jewish leaders were insincere in support of partition, or were unwilling to support any real compromise. Therefore adding a word to the lead section of the article at the top which would appear to question the motives of one side only, without adding a corresponding explanation of the overall complexities and nuances of the situation in the same place in the article, seems to me to be rather undesirable. AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to saying the plan was "tactically accepted". That would give UNDUE weight to a claim that so far we have one source for. The body of the article can say "so and so says that the Jews tactically accepted..." etc. But stating it as fact in the lead will just not fly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What's your suggestion? You describe how the situation shouldn't be oversimplified, but I'm sure you agree that simply saying that the arabs refused and the jews accepted would be precisely oversimplification. NMMNG, we do have many sources, we're just choosing to use the one we're now discussing. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There's always more to be said and additional context that could be supplied, but not everything can be included in the brief summary in the lead section at the top of the article -- and saying that the Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan in all their relevant formal public pronouncements in late 1947 and early 1948, while the Jews accepted the 1947 partition plan in all their relevant formal public pronouncements in late 1947 and early 1948, is factually correct, and does not misleadingly leave out details that are necessary to understand the unfolding of the most important events at a basic level. It also does not call into question by implication the motives or honesty of one side only (as adding the word "tactical" without any further qualification or explanation would). AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus to change the text and/or add "tactical". Thank you. Next issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is "someone's claim". You got it from a book. There are other books that say other things. It's a speculative interpretation of motives. You want to the encyclopedia to declare it as fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you restored a point of view that was recited in the voice of the encyclopedia, then claimed it is an undisputed fact. You invited me to add to the article if it needed it[12], and then deleted those viewpoints. Every statement in my material was properly attributed to an author right in the text of the article. [13] and [14]

Then we had our good faith discussion which provided proof that each of the authors said the events of 1937 were part of an on-going plan with direct connections to the events of 1947. You subsequently made a lot of edits to the background section and didn't mention any of these authors or their viewpoints. So Dailycare and I naturally want to know what gives? harlan (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the discussion where your own source said the Jews accepted partition and went out to dance in the streets? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the material that I'm going to include and that is part of my post. harlan (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions

AnonMoos it isn't your job to remove material sourced to mainstream authors in the text of the article, or to engage in repeated personal attacks here on the talk page.

Benny Morris, Wahlid Kahlidi, and Shlomo Ben Ami say that Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, Yigal Allon, & etc. had started planning for the conquest of the whole country in 1937 and used partition proposals as a tactical stepping stone. Avi Shlaim, Eugene Rogan, Simha Flapan, Sandra Berliant Kadosh, Musa S. Braizat, and John Baggot Glubb cite evidence in US, UK, Israeli, and Jordanian archives regarding the agreement between the Emir Abdullah and the Jewish Agency to partition the country between themselves. If you and NMMNG wish to claim that those are fringe theories, Wikipedia policy requires that you document that with reliable sources which report on the level of acceptance within the relevant academic community. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Reporting on the levels of acceptance.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases and Wikipedia:ARBPIA both say that prolonged edit wars are not a valid means of achieving consensus and that articles should describe all significant views in accordance with their prominence, and fairly weight the authority accorded each view in the relevant scholarly community with the aim of providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties.

I'll be happy to provide you with references from the New York Times, Foreign Affairs Magazine, the London Review of Books, Journal of Contemporary History, Alpayim, History and Memory, Publishers Weekly, and the Library Journal which say that those views are contained in standard textbooks and held by many mainstream scholars in the fields of history, sociology, political science, & etc. harlan (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's exactly the problem: you want to use this article as a springboard to attach your theories about the evil conniving Jews' long-held secret plans of conquest -- theories which can only be supported by blurring and confusing the distinctions between 1937 and 1947. This article is not about 1937, and 1937 is only relevant to this article as background material, unless you can present very specific evidence about substantive continuity between 1937 and 1947 with respect to this particular area. Futhermore, it takes some unmitigated gall to attempt to lecture others about "fringe theories", when you've already generated hundreds of kilobytes of somewhat redundant and repetitive (not to mention tiresome toilsome troublesome tedious and monotonous) discussions on this talk page and its archives, by means of your claim that (contrary to the established consensus of mainstream history accepted by reputable scholars in the field) the Arabs somehow supposedly did not reject the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 -- an assertion which is a crystal-clear example of a "Fringe theory" if there ever was one! AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I am not trying to prevent you from including sourced material in the article, but I am going to demand that you stop using the talk page as a forum for making comments that assume bad faith on my part. You have constantly resorted to no edit orders, personal attacks, offensive cultural stereotypes, and filibusters in order to flaunt the general sanctions that apply to everyone. I've always said that some Arab leaders rejected partition and some did not. There are plenty of mainstream historians and declassified documents that say Abdullah and his followers did accept the principle of partition, and that they had a modus vivendi agreement with the Jewish Agency to partition the country between themselves. It is a relevant fact that the international status of Transjordan and Palestine were unresolved, and that Abdullah ended up governing 4/5ths of the former mandated territory. harlan (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, Harlan -- Abdullah of Transjordan did not formally publicly sign the November 29th 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (the actual topic of this article, remember??), and did not issue open public statements urging the Arab Higher Committee etc. to formally publicly sign the November 29th 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, so whatever else he did was really irrelevant to the (implausible) claims that the Arabs somehow accepted the November 29th 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. As has been repetitively monotonously discussed in the talk page archives here, sub-rosa furtive covert under-the-table tactical accommodations between the Yishuv leadership and Abdullah of Transjordan are not the same thing as open public Arab agreement to the November 29th 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, and can never be equivalent to Arab signatures on the plan. AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right about King Abdullah I of Jordan. You just forgot to say he was NOT an Arab-Palestinian leader, but the King of then-Transjordan and descent from a Hijazi royal family. You also forgot to mention that his plans regarding the partition of Palestine were totally and aggressively rejected by the Palestinian leadership as well as any other Arab country. 109.66.21.139 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I notice you aren't citing any published sources and you forgot to mention that Tranjordan was the largest part of the mandate. The Palestinians certainly preferred Abdullah to Ben Gurion in any case. Besides, Abdullah had plenty of Arab Palestinian supporters. In "United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948",[15] Sandra Berliant Kadosh says the Jericho Conference was attended by several thousand Palestinians, including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem and Ramallah. They were all Nashashibis who rejected the rule of the Husseini clan. The written statement of Jordan to the ICJ [16] said that the Jericho resolution was "the culmination of requests made by the Palestinian Arabs through conferences attended by the elected Mayors of major West Bank towns and villages (Hebron, Ramallah, Al-Beereh, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Anabta), as well as leading religious clerics (Muslims and Christians alike), and a multiplicity of notables, tribal leaders, activists, college presidents, the Chief Shariaa Judge, and the Mufti of Jerusalem Saed-Ideen Al-Alami."

General John Baggot Glubb's book "A Soldier Among the Arabs" explains that British Foreign Secretary Bevin green lighted the occupation of the territory of the proposed Arab State by the Arab Legion, after the Prime Minister of Transjordan explained that Abdullah had received hundreds of petitions from Palestinian notables requesting protection upon the withdrawal of the British forces. Historian Eugene Rogan says that those petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in "The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)". see Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in "The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948", By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001. harlan (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, wasn't it you who said that Palestine and Transjordan were two separate states? Now you say it was one mandate? 109.66.21.139 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There was only one Mandate and there were two states established in it. In 1925 an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other. See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650-652 harlan (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(semi-break): alleged "sources"

Harlan, I'm afraid that most of the time I really don't pay much attention anymore to bibliographic lists provided by you, since it's become abundantly and redundantly clear by this point that you can manipulate "sources" to support any conclusion that you want. You could use sources to "prove" that up is down, that the sky is a delicately tinted blend of chartreuse and magenta, or that 2+2=5, if you believed those things. (I can even provide a proper "reference" for this last assertion: "Two and two make five"<ref>1984 by George Orwell (1949), New American Library edition, ISBN 0-451-51800-4, p. 228.</ref>!) Instead, I judge your additions by basic logic and plausibility, whether they are directly relevant to the subject matter of the article, and whether or not they contradict the accepted mainstream consensus of historical events as accepted by reputable scholars.

Furthermore, it borders on the grotesquely bizarre to treat the words of "Glubb Pasha" as some kind of alleged reliable source beyond all reproach, considering that soldiers under the command of "Glubb Pasha" played a role in the Kfar Etzion massacre, and "Glubb Pasha" never bothered to offer any explanation of his role in the matter, and seemed to have the attitude that it was beneath the high dignity of such a lofty and exalted personage such as "Glubb Pasha" to offer any explanations to mere lowly Jews (not to mention that later in life "Glubb Pasha" indulged in historical revisionism and seemed to deny that the Kfar Etzion massacre had ever occurred). AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos I was very serious when I said this needs to move to resolution. The fact that you have always dismissed the sources that I've provided is going to figure very prominently in the dispute resolution process. It is abundantly clear that you are fighting a loosing battle to filibuster the inclusion of opposing viewpoints which have been published by a LOT of reliable sources. Nobody has to "manipulate" the historians, they speak for themselves.

Glubb's account of the fighting at Kfar Etzion appears on page 77-78 of his book, so your claim that he never bothered to offer an explanation is hyperbole. In any case, his account of the meeting with Bevin was confirmed by other sources. Benny Morris, Amitzur Ilan, Avraham Sela, and Eugene Rogan have all cited the declassified minutes of a 22 March 1948 Cabinet meeting in which Bevin himself presented the details of the plan for the Arab Legion to occupy the territory of the proposed Arab state. harlan (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilkerson,^{(WP:CIVIL     ←   ZScarpia   03:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC))} the fact that King Abdullah's Arab Legion planned to conquer parts of the expired-Mandate of Palestine is nothing new. Golda Meir wrote something of this kind in Her biography ("My Life" published in English, Hebrew and Yiddish in the late 1970s). She didn't say something explicit, but from her account on her meeting with Abdullah I shortly before the Mandate expired, it can be easily inferred. The question remains - what does it has to do with the article in question? It is a habbit of yours to bring information as if it were a new discovery and claim it changes the whole picture. It is similar to the claim that the Mandate was a state based on some far fetched interpretations to which most mainstream non-politically- alligned scholars object. Transjordan, just like any other Arab regime at the time, never endorsed the partition plan. He did, however, had plans of his own. For example, he suggested in His meeting with Golda Meir (according to her biography), to annex the whole expired-Mandate territory and grant Jews autonomy under his government. When Meir said it was out of the question, he said he would have to join the war. When she asked him why, he said he had to allign with the other Arab leaders. In 1949 when the "Green Line" was discussed, Abdullah I was quite flexible and responsive to Israeli demands (see, for exaple, Moshe Braver's researches about Israel's borders), but avoided anything that could be interpreted as recognition in the newly established state. To sum it all up - you tell us nothing new, and it is all quite irrelevant to this article. 192.115.29.15 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Harlan -- since the majority of turbulence and instability in the article, and the majority of contention here on the talk page, is generated by you denying the basic facts of history as accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable scholars in the field (such as that the Arabs -- in formal public statements issued by Arab governments and the recognized representative institutions of the Arabs of the British mandate of Palestine -- REJECTED the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 or early 1948, while the formal public statements issued by the recognized representative institutions of the Jews of the British mandate of Palestine ACCEPTED the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 or early 1948), the main "resolution" would appear to be for you to stop denying simple basic accepted historical facts. It's like the old "Don't do that then" joke -- a man goes to a doctor and says "Doc, whenever I hold my hands over my head and vigorously jump up and down, I get terrible shooting pains all down my left side". The Doctor's reply: "DON'T DO THAT THEN!". If you choose to go to any form of arbitration or mediation or third-party opinion or whatever, your historical revisionism will be one of the main issues examined... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos most articles about UN resolutions are little more than stubs. You got bold and imported an introduction from an article about the 1948 War. You've constantly resorted to uncivil behavior and invectives in the ensuing discussions, and you are certainly pushing a POV in the lede which does not summarize the contents of the article. The article says that according to Simha Flapan and others it is a myth that Jewish leaders accepted partition and that it is a myth that the Arabs rejected it and planned for war. If you claim that is not a mainstream viewpoint, all you have to do is abide by ARBCOM sanctions and utilize reliable sources to support your contentious or disputed assertion.

The fact is that the textbook divisions of Routledge, Cambridge University, and MacMillan-Palgrave offer a number of products by Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Eugene Rogan, Benny Morris, and etc., and they all cite Simha Flapan's "Myths and Realities". That is a clear indication of the acceptance of that view by mainstream groups and academics outside Israel that are independent of their theories.

Your long drawn-out discussions here on the talk page are totally unnecessary. Articles have to providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. harlan (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, don't tell me that something is "unnecessary" when it's the best way I know how to keep you from changing historical fact to historical nonsense on this article. If you can tell me a better way to keep you from changing historical fact to historical nonsense on the article, then I'm listening intently. And I didn't really literally "import" a section from the First Arab-Israeli War article into the lead section of this article (though I was inspired by the concise and factual summary of the partition plan aftermath in the First Arab-Israeli War article to cut through the Gordian knot of rhetorical verbiage left behind in the lead section by some of your past revisions in order to get back to a statement of the basic relevant facts). And also, the fact that you seem to manipulate sources (whether with conscious intent or not, I don't claim to know) in order to try to overturn certain basic facts of history accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable scholars in the field (such as that the Arabs -- in formal public statements issued by Arab governments and the recognized representative institutions of the Arabs of the British mandate of Palestine -- REJECTED the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 or early 1948, while the formal public statements issued by the recognized representative institutions of the Jews of the British mandate of Palestine ACCEPTED the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 or early 1948) is exactly why I'm not excessively overawed by your piling on of bibliographic citations in other contexts. If I thought that you made a sincere diligent effort to never go beyond what your sources say, and never indulged in tendentious and highly-selective "cherry-picking", then things would be rather different here... AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos the simple fact is that I'm not trying to remove your hasbara, I'm insisting that the opposing views be summarized in the lede and that the hasbara be attributed as an opinion of the authors. You can keep throwing tantrums, but I am not going to revert war with you. I'm going to take this through dispute resolution. You already had an RfC, and now its being discussed at I/P Coll. You've been asked to support your "fringe theory" claim, but you are acting out and posting off-topic links about Sami Al-Arian instead. harlan (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hasbara? How about this telegram from 9 JAN 1948? [17] "Arab Higher Committee is determined persist in rejection partition and in refusal recognize UNO resolution this respect and anything deriving therefrom." 109.64.27.155 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I haven't added anything about Sami al-Arian to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues for well over a week now. I added a <references/> tag to the end of the page, and that displayed a footnote previously present in someone else's past remarks, as well as the footnote I recently added. It's not a good idea to mess with other people's comments (beyond certain minimal technical thread indentation adjustments and minor formatting fixes), especially if you have rather little idea of what's actually going one... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I know whats going on. I simply removed your unnecessary ref tags so your Britannica cite stayed within your own post and the extraneous Sami al-Arian crap would not hover at the end of an off-topic thread. You pitched a fit on my talk page. NMMNG did the same thing when he reformatted ref tags on the Resolution 242 talk page BTW, and it isn't considered a big deal. harlan (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You went beyond normal Wikipedia etiquette in altering other people's comments (as I already very clearly explained above), and you didn't really know what was going on or what you were doing, and the end result was somewhat unfortunate. If you want to transform a presentation of opposing views into a highly-personal conflict between two individuals, then going beyond normal Wikipedia etiquette in altering other people's comments is certainly one good way to do it! AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions

I'm not going to try to move the passsage right now, but the nature of the two "exceptions" (i.e. one group who did whatever Comrade Stalin said was good, and Abdullah of Transjordan, who wasn't willing to issue any public statements clearly in favor of the plan, and was only in favor of the plan in private to the degree that it would enable him to annex territory) is such that they might be more suitably discussed in the body of the article, instead of in the lead section up at the top... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

deleting my edit

I came across this article, innocently enough, to find that the Partition Plan and its significance was buried in a 6 paragraph (!) introduction. A lay person looking for a concise rundown, would be quickly turned off. To try and explicate its importance, and how it led to the war and the establishment of the Israel and Palestine we know today, I inserted a brief but precise and uncontroversial sentence at the end of the first paragraph:

"The Jewish community in Palestine accepted the parameters of the Resolution, but the Arabs of Palestine and the wider Arab world rejected partition - paving the way for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War"

I don't see how anyone could dispute the contents of that sentence. And yet someone deleted it straight away (citing WP:BURDEN, whatever that means) and someone else posted on my Talk page that "it was unsourced and redundant" (1 - why would you need a source for such a thing?; and 2 - how is it redundant if it hadn't been mentioned yet?) AND my sentence was "something of a controversy magnet"..... HUH?! JerryDavid89 (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You just violated 1RR and can be blocked, please read the banner "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" at the top of this page and the pages it links to. Your edit is problematic because it is an unsourced opinion that not everyone agrees is a reasonable summary. Zero^talk 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

JerryDavid89 -- It is somewhat disingenuous of you to claim that "yet to recieve a specific reason as to why my edit has been deemed unacceptable..." two hours after I added the following to your user talk page: Unfortunately, it interrupted the description of the resolution itself, it was unsourced and redundant to sourced material further down in the lead section, and it was becoming something of a controversy magnet... AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
And it was a controversy magnet because people were constantly re-editing it and editing it back in the short time it was on the article, as you can see by looking at the article history. Probably you had the best of intentions when you first started out, but those intentions do not seem to have resulted in a constructive change and lasting change to Wikipedia in this particular case. The only thing to do is to learn a little more and try again in a different way somewhere else on Wikipedia in the future -- because insistently edit-warring over this particular sentence is unproductive, and will send your Wikipedia editing career on a downward spiral before it's even barely begun. I actually agree with the basic factuality of the sentence you added, but it simply hasn't turned out to be overall useful for Wikipedia in that particular form in that particular place... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It might be true that a good personal style in individual essay-writing would require that some indication be given of the resolution's ultimate fate before the beginning of the 4th paragraph -- however, Wikipedia articles are the result of many other factors besides what makes for a good personal style in individual essay-writing... AnonMoos (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's not unsourced (as there are sources galore in the article that will attest to the fact) and it's not "redundant", as it would be the first mention of the fact in the whole article. And surely whether or not the inclusion of a fact "courts controversy" ought to be irrelevant to any any decision regarding said inclusion.

"Zero0000" characterizes the sentence as "opinion"?! Can s/he be serious?!

It's got nothing to do with "personal style" in "individual essay-writing" - look at any published encyclopedia. The most pertinent facts must be stated in the first few sentences.

And yet in this article, any reference to the outcome of the attempted implementation of the resolution, doesn't come until the second sentence of the third paragraph, where it states: "However, war broke out and the partition plan was never implemented by the Security Council." An essentially meaningless sentence. Not until the fourth paragraph, out of seven, are the results explicitly stated. I think that qualifies as a "burying" of the facts deep inside the text, intentionally or not, which makes the introduction and therefore the whole article rather difficult to penetrate. JerryDavid89 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"The most pertinent facts must be stated in the first few sentences" is actually a journalism rule-of-thumb -- but again, Wikipedia articles are not newspaper stories (just as they are also not personal essays). This would generally be a good thing, if feasible -- but Wikipedia articles are the result of balancing many other considerations and concerns, so that it some cases it might not turn to be feasible. AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to point out the irony of you telling me what is "a journalism rule-of-thumb" and what is essay-writing etc, and tell you what I do for a living, but I'd like to stay as anonymous as possible! ;-) But no, you're mistaken, in an encyclopedia article, the significance of the article must be stated clearly in the first few sentences - otherwise the purpose of the article is lost on the reader, as we see in this case. JerryDavid89 (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

However exalted you are in your own sphere, it's not wise to always assume that the customs and conventions which apply in that area will automatically apply to Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Exalted sphere" - I like it! From "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)": The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Emphasis Mine. JerryDavid89 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "exalted sphere", so you flunk on getting the quote right. And everything you mentioned refers to the lead section, not necessarily the first paragraph alone... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Arab reaction

"John Wolffe says that while Zionists have attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to intransigence, others have argued that it was rejected because it was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56 percent) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7 percent of it, and remained a minority of the population."

This quote is not balanced. It gives the impression that the Arab inhabitants owned the other 93% which is false. (Note above: Fairness). Chesdovi (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wolfee is talking about a permanent division of all the available land in the Mandated State between the majority group and a minority group. The Mandate secured the rights and position of the majority non-Jewish communities to a corresponding majority of the public lands of the State. Article 80 of the UN Charter also secured those rights and interests. In the early days of the Mandate era Zionists were disappointed to learn that very little of the State-owned lands were available for Jewish settlement. That was because Arab cultivators had already settled them or had acquired pre-existing rights to cultivate them. See State lands and rural development in mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948, By Warwick P. N. Tyler, pages 21-26 [18] Ben Gurion himself testified that Jews only held title to about 6 percent of the land and that they were effectively prevented from acquiring much more by the 1939 White Paper policies. Those policies were reflected in by the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance.

The quote very accurately describes the arguments of many commentators that the division was not equitable. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, the members of the Arab League were prepared to acquiesce to a partition, e.g. [19] But, they rejected the division proposed by the General Assembly. harlan (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, that's somewhat ridiculous, considering that in 1937 the Arabs had almost unanimously rejected the Peel plan (much less favorable to the Jews), while in 1947 official Arab spokesmen were not willing to openly go on the public record in favor of territorial compromise. AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi -- The quote is kind of simplistic, in that a very significant percentage of the claimed Jewish 56% was actually agriculturally-worthless desert land in the Negev, and since the Arabs made it very clear in their public pronouncements in 1947 and early 1948 that they were unalterably opposed to allowing Jews to exercise national sovereignty over any territory whatsoever, and would regard such an occurrence as an intolerable insult to the sacred rights of the Arab nation which could only be wiped away with blood (something that sure sounds like "intransigence" to me, or technically abstract absolutist maximalism). However, this does not mean that the quote should be automatically removed from the article (as long as it's somewhat contextualized and not given undue prominence). AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is fine, all I am asking is for context. The Jews may have owned 7%, but it should be stated that Jewish land purchase had been severly curtailed during the Ottoman period and under the British. Additionally, it must be made clear that the other 93% was not 1) All owned by the Arabs in the country, 2) Vast swaths were made up of "state lands", and owned by the governing entity or were ownerless. Chesdovi (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Switched Votes?

In contrast to other publications, the Wikipedia article identifies three states as having switched their votes from no to yes.

Is the article claiming that these three states actually voted no and then yes? Or is it a change that happened internally during the weeks leading up to the vote?

If the later, these are hardly the only countries that "switched".

In fact, the decision to highlight countries representing the minimum number of changes necessary to reverse the outcome would seem to be POV based, as opposed to being based on some objective criterion.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong China in vote section

According to United Nations Security Council (along with the fuzzy recollections of someone who was around 10 in 1971 when the PRC replaced the ROC), at the time the vote was taken in 1947, the Republic of China was on the Security Council, not the People's Republic of China. (I wouldn't be surprised if this error exists in other Wikipedia articles, or at least some probably ambiguously link to just China.) Also, while the accompanying graphic might not be flat out wrong, given that both entities (especially at the time) claim to represent all of China, it seems to at least be misleading, or at a minimum inexact, as there is no indication of which government cast the vote. Shawisland (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

UN document A/AC. 14/SR.31 24 November 1947

I am reverting the deletion that claims the source quoting Husseini stating that at least the Revisionist were honest has been misquoted. I think it is a fair (not great) summary of what appears in the source which I copy and paste: The Zionist programme was a well-calculated policy aimed at the acquisition and domination of the greater part of the Near East and the expansion of its influence over all the Middle East, Mr. Husseini quoted statements made by Dr. Otto Warburg, President of the Tenth Zionist Congress, in August 1911, and Dr. Nahum Sokolov in 1918, in the introduction to his History of Zionism, disclaiming any desire for a Jewish State, but only for a National Home in Palestine, Yet the three spokesmen of the Jewish Agency before the Ad Hoc Committee had all claimed the right to establish a Jewish State. Revisionist Zionists had always been honest in their declarations and had proclaimed of late their determination to continue their straggle for a Jewish State in the original boundaries of Palestine. In 1938, during the debate on the partition scheme of the Royal Commission at the Twentieth Zionist Congress, Mr; Ben Gurion had stated that no Zionist could forego the smallest portion of the land of, Israel, but that the point at issue was which of the two routes would lead more quickly to the common goal. (I resist the temptation to gloss the typos - an age before word processors) Padres Hana (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fairness

Wiki says:

"...it gave the majority of the land (56%) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7% of it, and remained a minority of the population.[87] Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.[87] Eugene Bovis says that the Jewish leadership had rejected an earlier partition proposal because they felt it didn't allocate enough territory to the proposed Jewish state.[88]"

- - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But Half of Israel was/is the Negev Desert. How can Palestinians complain about cultivability! and 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land. The above quotation the usual MISLEADING red hering "7%"

"...Once again Philip Mattar was featured, repeating some of the same falsehoods he had uttered in the previous segment:

""""The Jews were being offered 55% of Palestine when in fact they had owned only 7% of the country. Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice."""

Mattar's clear, and false, implication is that if Jews owned only some small percentage of the land, then Arabs must have owned the rest, in this case more than 93% of the country.

- But this is nonsense – in Mandate Palestine the Arabs owned little more land than did the Jews. Indeed, going back to Ottoman times, most of the country was state-owned land, not under any individual ownership. Thus, under the Ottoman code one of the main land categories was miri, meaning land belonging to the Emir. During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the British Survey of Palestine (republished and endorsed by Mattar's Institute for Palestine Studies), at least 65% of the country was state land, and probably much more than that...

- http://blogspot.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=291 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The ownership of 'Real Estate' is not the same as 'territorial' ownership or rights. E.g., Japanese Govt institutions, Companies/Corporations and individual citizens own Real Estate in Australia. They have no territorial rights whatsoever.

Territory belongs to all the citizens of an entity. Palestine was a non-self governing territory. It belonged to all the legitimate citizens of Palestine.

After Israel's independence, the territory that became Israel was renamed the State of Israel and only the territory within the extent of Israeli sovereignty belonged to Israeli citizens. The territory in what remained of Palestine, which has never been renamed, belongs to the citizens of the non-self governing territory of Palestine. It is protected under the UN Charter Chapt XI. ... talknic (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Was Israel declaration of independence illegal ?

If the resolution never went to the security council for a vote it means that the resolution is not binding and it has an advisory status. Was Israel's declaration of independence then not illegal ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what that means; the Security Council did vote on it, as you can see for yourself at http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ccf3096aa8f1bb8d852560c2005da665 ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The legal status of the partition resolution has kept the lawyers arguing ever since. You are linking to a SC resolution about admission of Israel to the UN, which is a different later matter. One can at least say that admission to the UN established that Israel was a sovereign state under international law, since recognition by other states is the main criterion for that. Zero^talk 01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC):::

No the Declaration was not illegal. As Zero has stated.

A Declaration of Independence is a unilateral statement, which when recognized becomes binding on both the declaring entity and those recognizing it. It can be ineffective though if made while the territories being declared are under the control of another entity.

For example the Jewish People's Council had to wait until British occupation (under the Mandate for Palestine) ended."On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. " [20]. Note in the call for recognition "The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time."[21].

Similarly, 1) East Timor's Independent Sovereignty was ineffective while it was occupied by Indonesia and; 2) Palestinian Independence October 1988 was not recognized as it was and still is, under the occupation of Israel ... talknic (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor point, but most countries in the world do recognize Palestine's independence. --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare - Correct I omitted the word 'effective' ... talknic (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes?

It looks like some recent changes were made that may introduce some POV into the article.

For example, all UN assembly resolutions are non-binding. But it has not been the practice to label them as "non-binding" general assembly resolutions. Doing so would imply that there is such a thing as binding general assembly resolution.

The resolution also does not mention the Holocaust. I don't think that this should be introduced when characterizing the contents of the resolution (although discussion of this elsewhere in the article would certainly seem appropriate).

I will try to make some changes to fix thisJsolinsky (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On further reflection, the bit about the holocaust was recently REMOVED not ADDED. Obviously I think this was the right decision. I apologize for my error. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if called for vs. recommended is an issue or not. The resolution clearly calls on the people of Palestine to implement the plan, but merely recommends things to the British government. Since the text is clearly declaratory (full of shalls and so forth), I think that "called for" was the correct language, and intend to restore it. If this was merely a recommendation ("here is what the GA thinks, but feel free to come up with something different") then we ought to include an appropriate reference to that effect. Sources on both sides seem to believe otherwise. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I think the old impasse language is clearly preferable to refused to pass. Negotiations occurred over an extended period of time, and might well have continued. Refused to pass, implies that there was a binary decision to be made (accept or reject), which is not an accurate characterization of the relationship between the GA and SC. Nonetheless, I am removing the recently added "citation" pointing out that the SC does not "implement" GA resolutions. While this may be true in the general case, this specific resolution explicitly calls on the SC to implement its contents in multiple respects.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor."

When authority was formally handed over to a successor state, then the departing British governor and incoming leaders of the new independent state would gather together around a flagpole, and the Union Jack would be ceremonially lowered to the sound of bagpipe music, and then the flag of the new independent state would be ceremonially raised. There were no British-Israeli flagpole ceremonies on May 14th-15th 1948, and any suggestion that there were any British-Israeli flagpole ceremonies is in fact historically quite ludicrous and absurd... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From page 13 of the Introduction of Britain, Palestine and Empire:The Mandate Years by Rory Miller:

From November 1947 until the final British withdrawal and abandonment of Palestine on 15 May 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham did his best to achieve some order and harmony in the face of the increasingly violent conflict between Arabs and Jews on the ground, and the seething resentment of British officials in both Palestine and London over the turn of events.

Despite instructions from London for him to leave Palestine well before the May withdrawal deadline, Cunningham insisted on remaining in his post until the final day of British rule. But despite his best efforts the end of the Mandate was mired in ‘shame and humiliation’ as one long-serving diplomat put it, and the withdrawal from Palestine was, by all accounts, a low point in the annals of British imperial retreat. As David Vital, one of the most authoritative historians of the Mandate era has summed up:

There was no ceremonial lowering and raising of flags in May 1948, no bands playing national anthems, no dignitaries exchanging salutes and pious messages of hope and amity, no be-medalled and tiaraed representatives of the British royal family present. Palestine, a political unit unknown before the British arrived, was simply evacuated and, upon evacuation, dissolved.

If you pay a fee, you can see a nice photo of Cunningham leaving Palestine on 14 May 1948 on this site.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, it looks to me as though you've broken the 1RR restriction on the article. If you agree, please revert yourself. Of three edits made in the preceding twenty-four hours, two made reversions.     ←   ZScarpia   05:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What does "revert yourself" mean, now that you've extensively re-edited the text in question? Do you want me to undo your edits? Anyway, the edits of User:Xchange and User:NickCT were extremely unconstructive and unproductive... AnonMoos (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I expect you to undo the last edit you made (and leave it undone for a reasonable length of time). Note that, if another editor gets here first, they may not give you the opportunity to do it (perhaps it wasn't a good idea to be rude about Xchange and NickCT's editing).     ←   ZScarpia   06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

However, that edit didn't violate any revert rule, since the text in question wasn't involved in any of the earlier edits. (I think the earlier phrasing is clearer than what you changed it to.) And it's the case that Xchange and NickCT's edits completely failed to improve the article in any manner whatsoever (other than possibly Xchange pointing out that the withdrawal wasn't completed on May 30). Adding a "cite" tag could have been constructive, but simply deleting highly relevant and factually true statements was unconstructive. AnonMoos (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Our understanding of the 1RR rule is obviously different. I have no problem with with the last text change you made (the earlier changes, which had the article state that the British withdrawal began on the 15 May 1948, were factually wrong, though), but I believe that you should have waited longer to make it.     ←   ZScarpia   12:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, since it had nothing to do with the earlier text in dispute?? It's rather unfortunate that you chose to escalate this to a level of cumbersome bureaucratic formalities and tedious goldenrod-triplicate-paperwork procedures based solely on your basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia repreated reversion rules (which govern repeated changing back the SAME text, not text which was sort of almost vaguely in the same vicinity as some other text). AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though my understanding of what constitutes a revert is incorrect. Perhaps my understanding of what constitutes a breach of the 1RR rule is incorrect also, but the way I understand it is that if you carry out more than one non-consecutive revert anywhere in the article (it doesn't have to be to the same piece of text) then you've broken the rule. I will ask somebody to clarify for me, though, because obviously I don't want to make any more false reports. Gaining a different understanding will also affect the way I myself edit.

From my point of view, I was trying to be nice to you. I thought you'd breached the 1RR rule and was giving you a chance to undo your last edit in order to resolve the problem. If you'd come back and explained that, as far as you could see, the last edit wasn't a revert, I would have discussed it with you. If you'd shown any recognition that I was trying to act in a friendly way, I would have held off. Instead you responded with negative remarks about other editors, which looked a bit cheeky because the edits you'd been making were factually incorrect. I gave you a chance to remedy the situation or respond positively in some other way. When you didn't use the opportunity, I raised a report at AE. I'm sure that quite a few editors, if you had indeed breached the 1RR rule, would have reported you to the AE noticeboard straightaway.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the basic import of Wikipedia reversion policies was rather clear. Guess there's always a new way that someone can misinterpret something. It would have been nice if you had a zeal to prevent relevant factual material from being deleted from the article, similar to the zeal you seem to have for petty-bureaucratic technicalities... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Which relevant factual detail should I have prevented from being deleted? The incorrect and non-factual detail that you were trying to add, that the British withdrawal started on the 15th of May 1948 (when, in fact, the withdrawal was virtually complete by that date)? If I had a zeal for petty-bureaucratic technicalities, I think that I would have raised more than the one AE report (the current one), and zero ANI reports that I've raised in the time (more than 5 years), that I've been editing on Wikipedia. When it comes to ARBPIA articles, I think that enforcing the current 1RR restriction on them rises above the level of insisting that petty-bureaucratic details are respected. In normal circumstances, I would have offered an apology for raising a report on false premises, but why cast pearls where I don't think they would be appreciated?     ←   ZScarpia   18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, that happens to be essential nonsense. I was trying my best to prevent the TRUE AND RELEVANT fact that "During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor" (see section title above) from being removed from this article, while also preserving Xchange's point that the withdrawal only started on May 14th (though I don't think that the previous wording really stated that the withdrawal ended on the 15th, it could be considered ambiguous). None of this was particularly helped by your apparent eagerness to cast yourself in the role of a petty enforcer of technical petty-bureaucratic legalisms and cumbersome goldenrod-forms-filed-in-triplicate procedures whose basic purpose you didn't even really correctly understand... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Before your first edit, the second sentence of the British reaction section read: It refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period and announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine. After your first edit, it read: It refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period and announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine starting on 15 May 1948. You did, though, get things a little more (but not entirely) correct in the Lead, but there you were re-adding text that Xchange (who didn't state that the withdrawal began on the 14th) had just removed (after previously having changed the text announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine on 15 May 1948 to announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by 15 May 1948).     ←   ZScarpia   21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

British handover, 1948

Sorry for the great delay (I am not a great fan or proficient user of Google Books -- it strains my browser close to the limit for one thing -- so I had to physically journey to the university library), but I'll be adding some references in the next day or two. It turns out that the British claimed to be handing things over to the United Nations Palestine Commission only (not to Jews and not to Arabs) -- but all at once at the stroke of midnight of May 14th/15th itself, without cooperating or coordinating anything with the Commission before that moment (in fact, the British refused to allow the members of the Commission to even enter the country until a rather late date), and without making any concrete preparations on the ground to transfer any actual territory or governmental institutions, assets, or records to the Commission. Given all this, and that the Commission had no troops at its command in what was rapidly becoming an active war zone, the façade of handing things over to the United Nations Palestine Commission was beyond being even a bad joke, as the British themselves were fully aware in private. Sir Alec Kirkbride, British Ambassador to Amman, had some choice (private?) remarks about how self-defeating and petty the British policy was:

Kirkbride was particularly critical of the government's refusal to allow in the UN commission, whose members ultimately "achieved nothing in the face of the non-cooperative stand of the authorities, which made any orderly transfer of power impossible". Kirkbride viewed with some cynicism the British claim that they could not abdicate authority prior to the end of the Mandate, for he had noted "how far the responsible quarters abdicated their duties when it suited them to do so".
-- Michael J. Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers 1945-48 (1982 ISBN 0691053715), p.317.

Sir Alexander Cadogan apparently announced the basics of this policy to the General Assembly ca. November 13 1947...

When the British withdrew from the King David Hotel and Government House in Jerusalem, they left the Red Cross flag flying over those buildings. When the last British plane left Tel Aviv airport, no flag was flying there. Of course, naval enforcement of British anti-immigration policies continued uninterrupted until the very last moment on May 14th...

On the ground, semi-low-level bureaucrats who didn't want the years they had spent building up a functioning antiquities authority, or a health service, or whatever, to go to waste, sometimes informally handed over local government agency offices to the Jews in areas where the de facto incoming government was Jewish; and a few military commanders informally handed over certain strategic points (police outposts etc.) to either Arabs or Jews (depending on which side they favored); but the official British policy remained as above. The absurdity of the whole British policy was epitomized by one incident in Jerusalem: "...the police had locked up the last of its gear, valued at ₤1 million, in a warehouse, and wanted to hand the keys over to the U.N. The U.N. refused to accept them. So on his last evening Chief Secretary Gurney went to U.N. headquarters and placed the keys on the steps." -- Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate (2000 ISBN 0316648590), p.517. AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting NMMNG's re-establishment of the text [22] Clearly a non-sense, un-referenced, statement of opinion by Arthur Koestler. An entity cannot declare Independent Sovereignty whilst any part of the territories they were declaring are under the control of any other entity. "1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. [23] (and BTW 2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control) ... talknic (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I never added the references I mentioned (adding such references is not something I enjoy doing, or that I'm very good at). My failure in fact had something to do with your arrival on the Wikipedia middle-east article talk pages a few days after my comment above, leading to very lengthy discussions on your abstract hypothetical philosophical speculative metaphysical exegesis of the November 29th, 1947 partition plan -- discussions which conspicuously failed to lead to the significant improvement of even one single article (as I predicted would be the case from the very beginning). Meanwhile, in the first half of 1948, the British refused to formally or officially hand over or transfer anything to either Jews and Arabs. The British claimed to be handing over the Mandate territory to the United Nations Palestine Commission, but in fact they did their best to sabotage the work of the United Nations Palestine Commission through many acts of petty spiteful bureaucratic obstructionism -- and when the crunch time came on May 15, the United Nations Palestine Commission was completely powerless to assert any authority or accomplish anything on the ground in the Mandate (as the British had clearly foreseen, and done their best to bring about). That's what amounts to refusing to hand over sovereignty or authority to anybody (with an added soupçon of après moi le déluge and "let the caged animals fight over the raw meat according to the law of the jungle" attitudes). If you have any constructive suggestions about how to revise the wording to make the situation clearer, then by all means please offer them -- but your original research semi-gibberish about "entities"[sic] etc. really doesn't help anything... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Noted your long and completely un-sourced opinion ... talknic (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- it's a lot more grounded in the facts of history than your self-involuted navel-gazing original research abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculations about "entities"[sic]. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "Whatever, dude" WP:CIVIL .... The actual wording of UNGA Res 181 show Koestler's opinion to be 'grounded' in complete nonsense

Please cease your stupid personal affronts and address the points raised with sourced information ... talknic (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes some brazenness to take it upon yourself to remind others of "CIVIL", considering your pattern of including gratuitous insults and "personal affronts" in your edit summaries. Meanwhile, everything above refers to the historical facts of what actually happened on the ground in May 1948, so that all the fine rhetoric and good intentions of the never-implemented Arab-rejected November 29th 1947 partition plan proposal really doesn't change anything... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- The words of UNGA Res 181 show the British had no obligation to allow the Commission into the region prior to the termination of the Mandate. Anything that says otherwise is nonsense.

Again, please stop your unwarranted personal comments. Thx ... talknic (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad for you that you have absolutely no concern for facts or history, but only care about your original research abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculations. That's the kind of thing that got you banned the last time around. Meanwhile, you include more "personal comments" in your edit summaries than I do on talk pages... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonmoos -- Please cease ... talknic (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to cease including gratuitous insults in your edit summaries? AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- When you stop your personal attacks I'll stop tracking them with appropriately worded summaries. Please stop! thx ... talknic (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Telling you you're wrong is not harassment. Repeatedly telling you you're wrong when you repeatedly post the same nonsense is also not harassment. Your interpretation of primary documents to the point where you claim any source that doesn't agree with you is not reliable is not only ridiculous, the fact you repeat it over and over without persuading anyone is textbook tendentious editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "Telling you you're wrong is not harassment" Correct. Unnecessary, repetitive personal remarks are! Calling a quoted section, (without interpretation), "a wall of text", refusing to read it, then calling it "the same nonsense", very likely falls into the same category

"...where you claim any source that doesn't agree with you is not reliable " 'any source' you're exaggerating. Those that do not accurately reflect the documents they reference. Per your own criteria.

Zero brings Primary Sources to the discussion. They're an asset if one needs to know exactly what one needs to find cited in seconday sources or to see if secondary sources accurately reflect the document/s they refer to. I've yet to see Zero being harassed for bringing Primary Sources to Talk or for saying a Primary Source is "clear enough to go on with".

Zero has pointed out @ 09:33, 15 October 2011, the plans called for the establishment of a "Provisional Council of Government". The JNC (Jewish People's Council) formed an interim government on March 2, 1948. They existed more than two months before declaring. It was NOT prevented by the British ... talknic (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think you're being harassed I encourage you to go to one of the admin boards and make your case. It's obvious your repetitive claims that you are don't seem to be making an impression. I look forward to the community scrutinizing your behavior and the responses to it.

Zero said that the primary source is "clear enough to go on with" for someone who was asking for primary sources not for use in this article. If your editing style was anything like Zero's, you wouldn't be having all these problems. That includes the use of high quality secondary sources, listening to what other people think, not repeating his personal opinions over and over when it's obvious everyone else doesn't agree with him and generally knowing what he's talking about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG A) I didn't give a primary source for use in the article. B) just stick to the topic.... Thx ...talknic (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While I find your personal opinion as interesting as always, there are certain undisputed facts that are discussed by many historians and are familiar to anyone who's actually read a mediocre or above book on the subject. One of them is that the British refused to cooperate with the UNPC, did not allow them to enter the country to demarcate borders or set up any kind of administration and did not agree to pass on in an orderly fashion any functions of government either to the UNPC, the Jews or to the Arabs. Here's another book that discusses this, I hope it meets your approval. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "While I find your personal opinion" JCPA opinion. (and BTW the very meaning of independent[24])"undisputed facts that are discussed by many historians" They are in fact disputed because; they are shown to be complete nonsense by UNGA Res 181.

With the exception of the Karton quarter, the borders were already demarcated in the Partition planPart II the Jewish agency accepted and declared, without registering any reservation, enshrining UNGA res 181 in the Declaration[25].

The Arab representation had until 1 October 1948 to declare if they wishedPLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE 3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

However, with Jewish forces controlling territories slated for the Arab State, "outside the territories of the State of Israel" by May 22nd 1948[26], this was rendered impossible[27].

"One of them is that the British refused to cooperate with the UNPC, did not allow them to enter the country to demarcate borders " Your source, Howard Grief, actually says "before May 1948" and; it does not say anything about demarcating borders. You're omitting key words and adding weasel words to an already fallible source

With the exception of the Karton quarter, the "boundaries" were already demarcated November 29, 1947Parts II & III and;

"PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION - Part I.

Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE:

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of (not demarcation) the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary." ... From Part II "The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission......"

"...or set up any kind of administration and did not agree to pass on in an orderly fashion any functions of government either to the UNPC, the Jews or to the Arabs" There could be no 'Government' until either party (should they wish or be able to) A) Declared Independent Statehood B) were controlled by a Provisional Govt until; C) a State Government was elected, D) under a constitution (something the Israeli Govt has yet to comply with according to its own Declaration. I.e., there has never been a legally elected Government in Israel)

"4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of the Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission" ...talknic (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If there was a point in that wall of text, I'm missing it. I obviously meant demarcation on the ground, not on a map which they could do in their office at UN headquarters. I'm glad you found a way to bring up once again your favorite documents and interpret them to your liking, though. I can tell this is going to be fun. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - "If there was a point in that wall of text, I'm missing it." Of course, in the main it shows your source to be nonsense.

"I obviously meant demarcation on the ground" By it's own words the Resolution meant exactly what it said "3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. " "establish" what had already been demarcated.

"I'm glad you found a way to bring up once again your favorite documents and interpret them to your liking, " Meanwhile, you attribute non-existent words to your own ill informed source! I've cited in the main, UNGA res 181, the key document to your source's nonsense. The Jewish People's Council Declaration, the final acceptance of UNGA Res 181, in total.

The provisional Government of Israel's statement to the UNSC confirming it controlled areas outside the territory of the State of Israel, which according to the JCPA, prevented the Arab States from declaring effective independence by at least 22nd May 1948, let alone by the 1 October 1948 deadline.

Please address the points raised and please stop your personal affronts ... talknic (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't I just clarify to you what I meant? It wasn't so hard to understand the first time, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained it again. Your tendency to pretend not to understand what people are saying in order to tear down the strawmen you erect is not only only illogical, it also wastes everyone's time. The British did not allow the UNCP to come in and mark the borders on the ground. This is the last time I clarify this for you.

UNGA 181 (a primary document) does not prove or disprove anything regarding how the British transferred power when they terminated the mandate. How could it? It was written almost 6 months before the event. Your personal interpretation of the document, is, as usual, irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Koestler's opinion is illogical. It's contradicted by the text of UNGA res 181 ..."The British did not allow the UNCP to come in" They were not required to until they left. It's in the Resolution. I quoted it, verbatim, which is not illogical nor is it "a waste of everyone's time". It's the very nature of Talk.

"it does not prove or disprove anything regarding how the British transferred power " It proves, with out a doubt what was required and the order in which it was required. What is so hard to understand about "progressively turned over to the Commission" ? I did not interpret the words of UNGA res 181, I quoted them

Again, please cease your personal remarks ... talknic (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you remind me what your qualifications to interpret primary historical documents are? I'm a bit fuzzy on your exact academic background.

What you quoted from 181 does not only not support your claim, it supports mine. They were supposed to progressively turn over power and coordinate their withdraw and did neither. But that's irrelevant because we're not allowed to interpret primary documents here, as I'm sure you know by now. I'm not going to argue with you over the interpretation of a primary document, so feel free to get your last word in so I can ignore you on this as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- What is quoted verbatim, is not interpreted. They were supposed to progressively turn over power and coordinate their withdrawal after May 14th 1948

Again, please cease your personal comments ... talknic (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? It's not interpretation to say it's all supposed to happen "after May 14th 1948" when the resolution says no such thing and in fact that date appears nowhere in the document (and how could it? At that point the British said they will complete their withdraw by August 1st as you can see in the 5th line of the primary source that you're supposedly "quoting verbatim" from)? Could have fooled me.

Oops. Forgot I was going to ignore your nonsense on this issue. Starting now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - A) The wording of UNGA res 181 shows there was no obligation for the British to allow the Commission entry prior to the termination of the Mandate, which happened to be May 14th 1948[28].

B) UNGA Res 181 also shows it was not the purpose of the Commission to "demarcate" borders, but to establish the boundaries per UNGA Res 181.

C) "British said they will complete their withdraw by August 1st as you can see in the 5th line. " You're 'seeing' things. UNGA Res 181 - 5th line says precisely "Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by l August 1948;" I.e., any time between the termination of the mandate[29] and Aug 1st 1948. There is a vast difference between 'plans' and 'will'. I guess that's why things should be quoted verbatim.

D) UNGA res 181 makes no mention of any obligation on the British to become involved in an International war on the termination of the Mandate.

"Forgot I was going to ignore your nonsense on this issue. Starting now. " Please stop your unwarranted personal remarks. Thx ... talknic (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talknic's comment of "20:00, 13 October 2011" -- your focus on pseudo-legalistic interpretation and exegesis of written documents does nothing to change the well-attested historic fact that the British did all they could to sabotage the mission of the United Nations Palestine Commission, and were in fact quite successful in torpedoing the Commission, which found itself to be completely without ability to influence events when May 15th dawned. AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonmoos - Your " well-attested historic fact" is contradicted by the actual wording of UNGA res 181. Which shows no obligation on the British to hand over prior to the termination of the mandate, being May 14th 1948 [30] Nor does UNGA res 181 require the British to become involved in an International war ... talknic (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude, unfortunately you seem to be making a choice to be somewhat obtuse. None of your personal legalistic interpretation does anything to change the fact that the British did all they could to sabotage the mission of the United Nations Palestine Commission (and were rather successful at it). This has to do with many other things besides fine-print legalisms about a date, and your ultra-narrow focus on fine-print legalisms, while ignoring basic historical facts, is not very productive for discussing improvements to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article. AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

ANONMOOS-- You address one else as "Dude" & please stop your ridiculous comments. It's quite tiresome

"None of your personal legalistic interpretation " I've quoted the text of UNGA res 181, without comment.

When Koestler doesn't accurately represent the document he's talking about, he's not a reliable source. The actual text of the document he's talking about does not support the view that there was any obligation on the British to allow the Commission entry prior to the Mandate ending or to enter into an International War after the Mandate expired ... talknic (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- I don't know about Koestler and I don't care about Koestler, nor do I care about the technicalistic legalisms about the date. What I do care about is the historical fact that the British did all they could to sabotage the mission of the United Nations Palestine Commission (and were rather successful at it), and you seem to be using every strategy you can think of to avoid and evade any acknowledgment of this historical fact -- which certainly doesn't do anything create an atmosphere conducive to fruitful collaboration leading to article improvement. AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos "Whatever"? Your historical facts are not supported by UNGA res 181, which outlines the British duties, contrary to Kirkbride's claim about their duties ... talknic (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Kirkbride was not writing about the text of UNGA Resolution 181, he was writing about the British actions between December 1947 and May 1948 -- and it's a 99.999% percent probability that he knew a hell of a lot more about that topic than you do... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "Kirkbride viewed with some cynicism the British claim that they could not abdicate authority prior to the end of the Mandate"

The British did not have a Mandate to partition OR be involved in partition. The Mandate was not re-written when the partition plan was put forward.

Mandate - Article 1 - The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

Article 7 - The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

UNGA Res 181

Part 1. A.1. The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948. (it happened to be on 14th May 1948)

Part 1. B. 2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission.

The grey area under UNGA res 181 is : The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948 ... talknic (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are several problems with the text. One is that this is largely Koestler's opinion which is not shared by everyone, and so it should not be presented as a mere fact. Another is that the source does not really support the text. The text says "the British refused to hand over territory", but the source says that the British abandoned territory, leading the warring parties to scramble for it. It is similar, but not the same thing. A better source and more accurate report is needed (and spare us Howard Grief, an extremist who is not a third party source). Zero^talk 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As shown by UNGA res 181 (above), Both "refused to hand over territory" and "abandoned territory", are complete nonsense ... talknic (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTED: Itsmejudith's complete removal of NMMNG's reinstated text (while under discussion). I agree though, that there is too much cluttered detail for the Lede

BTW why is there another section title British handover, 1948? Can we/I/someone remove it? ... talknic (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened afterwards is not the main topic of the article, ergo removal. By all means tidy the article if you identify duplication or drift away from topic. The underlying problem with this whole series of articles is the constant temptation to retell the same historical events, thus making it impossible to keep an eye on NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant why is there another section title British handover, 1948 in this Talk section, not the Article. Can we/I/someone remove it? ... talknic (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the subheading? AnonMoos sensibly put it in when he re-opened discussion after a long gap. Personally, I often start a new section on a talk page if the discussion is getting stale or sprawling. Making a new start can be sometimes helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They were supposed to hand over the territory in an orderly fashion. They blocked the UNPC, refused a proposal for a transitional regime and then upped and left leaving a vacuum. Do you have a source saying they didn't do it deliberately? I'm open to alternative wording but the issue of how the mandate ended should certainly be in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- They did not block the UNPC. They were suppose to hand over as outlined in UNGA res 181. It was quoted, verbatim, "in that wall of text" you purposefully attempted to ignore. ... talknic (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They were supposed to, but didn't. They didn't allow entry to the UNPC until two weeks before the Mandate was over. Again, your interpretation of primary documents is irrelevant. I'm guessing you weren't even aware of this issue until it was brought up here yesterday. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "They were supposed to" The actual words of UNGA res 181, quoted verbatim, without interpretation, say otherwise.

"I'm guessing you weren't even aware of this issue until it was brought up here yesterday" your guessing is completely irrelevant

Again - Please stop your un-necessary personal comments ... talknic (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your fascination with narrow technicalistic legalisms doesn't change the fact that the British intended to sabotage the mission of the United Nations Palestine Commission, and succeeded in doing so -- and there's no reason why we can't mention this well-attested historic fact in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "the fact that the British intended to sabotage" go ahead. I recommend you verify your opinion with a reputable source which can't be proven to be complete nonesense by the actual wording of UNGA res 181 ... talknic (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The only complete nonsense regarding the actual wording of 181 here is your interpretation of what it says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - There is no interpretation in this section.

"PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION - Part I.

Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE:

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary." ... From Part II "The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission......"

Statements of fact - It does not say 'to demarcate borders' . It says " the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine". It does not say the British had an obligation to hand over to the Commission before the termination of the Mandate. It does not say the British had an obligation to become involved in an International War. Koestler does not truthfully represent the resolution he refers to. I.e., Koestler is not a reliable source on this particular matter ... talknic (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- I already provided a source directly above: Palestine and the Great Powers 1945-48 (1982 ISBN 0691053715), p.317, quoting Alec Kirkbride, British Ambassador to Amman. All you have is your ultra-narrow technicalistic legal interpretation original research... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Secondary source that do not accurately reflect the documents they reference are not reliable sources for that information. WP:RSN

The text of UNGA 181 (no interpretation by me) show your sources do not accurately convey the meaning of UNGA res 181, which they cite. I.e., They are not reliable ... talknic (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your silly waste of space remarks ... talknic (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the source I adduced is not about the text of UNGA resolution 181 -- it's a British diplomatic official discussing the actions of the British government in the six months or so after UNGA resolution 181 passed. Furthermore, what you're attempting to do is place your own original research interpretation and exegesis of a primary source document over the words of a British diplomat reported in a secondary source -- and this is quite clearly contrary to Wikipedia policies, no matter how many acronyms you attempt to throw around. P.S. If anything is a clear "silly waste of space" here, it's claims that the Jews are supposedly somehow irrevocably bound for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, while the Arabs are not bound to obey any of the provisions of UNGA resolution 181 -- that's sillier by far than anything that I've said. AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "is not about the text of UNGA resolution 181" //Kirkbride viewed with some cynicism the British claim that they could not abdicate authority prior to the end of the Mandate.."// UNGA res 181 shows no obligation to abdicate authority prior to the mandate ending

"apparently announced" Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic. No results found for "the police had locked up the last of its gear, valued at".

"you're attempting to do is place your own original research interpretation and exegesis" I quoted, without comment.

"claims that the Jews are supposedly somehow irrevocably bound for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181" I've never made such a claim & the Arab States had every right to ignore a non-binding resolution

Please just address the points raised, sans unwarranted & untrue comments ... talknic (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's when you display this level of obtuseness (which at least in part seems to be a very intentional and deliberately-calculated obtuseness) that I most often feel the urge to use the word "Dude" in a vocative grammatical construction. When weighing the statements of someone who was actually in a position to know in detail about British government actions from December 1947 to May 1948, vs. your pure original research abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative exegesis of the wording of a document written in November 1947 (BEFORE the British government actions in question had yet occurred!), then there's really no question of substance at all -- Kirkbride is reliable, and your personal original research is unreliable. If you sincerely feel differently, then feel free to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "Kirkbride is reliable" Except each instance must be taken on its own merits. Kirkbride might not be reliable in this instance. The document he references in respect to British obligations, is not accurately represented.

"the wording of a document written in November 1947 " which described Britains future obligations as to how the future transition to Governance was to take place, after the mandate ended.

Please stop cluttering the pages with meaningless personal remarks ... talknic (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It's nice if you're retreating from your previous unsupportable position, but your one-time claims that the Jews are supposedly somehow irrevocably bound for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, while the Arabs are not bound to obey any of the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, can be seen by all who don't mind wasting their time at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 13#Re: 1947.E2.80.931948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine... AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - The archive link doesn't support your accusation. In a nutshell "UNGA Resolutions -- although non-binding ... The parties were obliged to it ONLY IF THEY DECIDED TO DECLARE, wherein they were ... subsequently bound by their Declaration and any voluntary obligations it contained" ... The Arab States were not obliged to a non-binding resolution.

No where do I say "the Jews"

Now please stop A) Making false accusations and B) harassing. The subject is British handover, 1948 thx ... talknic (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Jews" is the wording used in your favorite (or is that second-to-favorite?) primary source document. I'm scanning down http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm , and I don't see the word "Israel". Meanwhile, as has been said, "Telling you you're wrong is not harassment" -- and you're the one who has been making constant unsupportable proposals, thereby generating hundreds of thousands of bytes of discussion on article talk pages without ever leading to the significant improvement of even one single article (as I clearly predicted six months ago -- just call me "Nostradamus"!). AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - First it was "the Jews", which I did not write. Now it's the "Jews", which I didn't write. BTW You're citing a Primary Source, not written by me. Your accusation is false and; fast becoming hilariously desperate. As for it being my favourite document, it is a key document to the discussion.

Furthermore - UNGA res 181 doesn't mention Israel because the name Israel wasn't chosen for the Jewish State until immediately prior to declaration.

"Meanwhile..." Please keep non-essential comments to yourself. thx ... talknic (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@Zero - What do you think about the footnote here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And last paragraph here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion relevant to the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is. It's about the British obstruction of the implementation of the plan. I think it's very relevant and I'm about to restore it with a slight change in wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps there could be a section "Implementation", near the end. I'll see what you put in. On the face of it Koestler seems to be an unusual choice of source, but as I say, I will see. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The two sources I posted above are from Pappe and Karsh. Both agree that the British did not allow the the UNPC to come in and do what it was supposed to do according to the PP, and that they rejected a proposal for a transitional government. I'm open to suggestions about the wording. I see Zero's point that saying they "refused" to hand over administration is interpretive. They did obstruct the implementation the PP had envisioned though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pappe and Karsh agree on something? What is the world coming to? But they only agree a little bit. I've been reading several more centralist versions of this story, in particular a few journal articles. Britain decided around Dec 1947 that it would not implement the partition resolution and would not cooperate with the UN in implementing it. It isn't correct that Britain refused a transitional government because there wasn't really any such proposal ("government" is way too strong). There was a UN "commission" to oversee the transition, which the British only allowed into Palestine in early May, but it have been useless even if the British had cooperated because no Arab representative would talk to it. Meanwhile, Britain was secretly urging Jordan to take over the Arab portion of the partitioned Palestine as soon as Britain left. Koestler is not a good source for any of this since he was not privy to all the shit happening behind the scenes. Zero^talk 11:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations Palestine Commission would have had a difficult task in the best of circumstances, but the British very deliberately acted in such a way as to ensure that the Commission would have absolutely no possibility of accomplishing anything whatsoever. AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- The British did not have a mandate to be involved in partitioning Palestine. In fact the opposite Mandate Article 7, they acted according to the Mandate. ( which was not re-written when UNGA Res 181 was written )

Furthermore, as you claim UNGA res 181 was the "never-implemented Arab-rejected November 29th 1947 partition plan", it's rather odd that you now hold the British to it ... talknic (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but whatever the convoluted hypertechnicalities of your personal legal interpretations may be, the decision-makers in the British government were pretty much liars or hypocrites or both, since they claimed to be acting for the benefit of the United Nations Palestine Commission, but in actuality they were doing all they could to maliciously sabotage the work of the United Nations Palestine Commission in advance. Furthermore, the generalized policies laid down by the top-level liars or hypocrites in the UK government led to lower-level officials having to perform acts of petty-bureaucratic spitefulness all down the line, and some them (like Alec Kirkbride) weren't too happy about it, and a few of them (like the officials who handed over the antiquities office or local health service to the incoming Jewish government) actively disobeyed orders. In any case, many of the UN's decisions about the Palestine Commission were actually made 'after November 29th, 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - A) Please refrain from convoluted personal remarks. B) Please provide sources C) The British were obliged to the Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine contained nothing about partition. It did though, contain Article 7 ... talknic (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad that you insist on talking about solely your personal abstract hypertechnicalistic pseudo-legalistic parsings of documents written before December 1947, while everybody else in this section is talking about the concrete actions of the British government in the six months after December 1947. AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- As the Mandate didn't end until May 14th 1948 [31], it's quite relevant to British actions until that date ... talknic (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

However, if we're discussing the concrete actions of the British government from December 1947 to May 1948, then abstract parsing and technicalistic exegesis of a document authored in November 1947 really will not substitute for or obviate in any way the necessity of considering what it was that the British government actually did from December 1947 to May 1948. This is one of those things which should be so extremely obvious as not to need any extended explanation or discussion -- except that it somehow does, when you're around. AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- UNGA res 181 mentions the Mandatory. The Mandatory was obliged to the Mandate for Palestine until such time as it expired.

Please refrain from posting un-necessary clutter and personal remarks ... talknic (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If the nature of your remarks didn't demand repeated basic explanations of things which should be very self-explanatory and intuitively obvious to even moderately-well-informed persons of goodwill, then this talk page would be a lot less "cluttered'... AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we agree on the basic facts, so that's something. Would you like to suggest some wording? The relevant points are that the British decided not to implement the plan or cooperate in its implementation (with the UN or anyone else), obstructed the work of the UNCP (we can say that according to X and Y the UNCP was doomed to fail anyway) and did not follow any recommendations (like opening a port in the area that was to become the Jewish state). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of an extra source with a very detailed description of the UN implementation plan, I take back what I said about transitional government. Actually the plans called for the establishment of a "Provisional Council of Government" in each of the two states. I'll write something with sources within a few days. Zero^talk 09:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Take into consideration that: the JNC (or Jewish People's Council) formed an interim government on March 2, 1948. It existed more than two months before declaring. It was NOT prevented by the British ... talknic (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me you didn't get that information from the wikipedia article about the JNC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - No. I preclude Wikipedia from all searches with -Wikipedia -Wiki ... [32] (seems they've been naughty. So too, now you've pointed it out, the un-sourced entry by Humus sapiens).

This gives a more thorough account [33]. Prior to the Mandate for Palestine ending, the National Council (Council of 37) and National Executive (Committee of 13) existed. What became Government order No 1 1948, states "with the dissolution of the British Mandate in the Land of Israel, the National Executive would function as the interim Government of the State of Israel...etc"

Rather an odd notion that the Mandate was in the 'Land of Israel'. The mandate itself says "Mandate for Palestine" ... talknic (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The first link was a joke, right? Or did you not notice it's a copy of the wiki article?

Can you point me to where your second source says that "the JNC (or Jewish People's Council) formed an interim government on March 2, 1948. It existed more than two months before declaring. It was NOT prevented by the British"?

Seems quite obvious you read something here or in a copy of the wikipedia article, then extrapolated a bit and pretended you're supplying information from an independent source. That's not very honest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- A) Again : I preclude Wikipedia from all searches with -Wikipedia -Wiki! [34]. The record shows that: you mentioned Wikipedia after I posted the first link. Thanks for the heads up BTW. Dubious information from Wiki, being perpetuated (un-attributed) by nakliyatcifirmalar.com

B) "Can you point me to where your second source says ..etc etc ..." Nice try. However, the record shows I didn't attribute the plagiarized Wiki information from the first (discredited) source, to the second source. The second source, as I said, gives a more thorough account ... talknic (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Precluding wikipedia usually includes having a look at the wikipedia article and seeing if what you're using (in this case a blog, but never mind) is a copy or not. It is also not good practice to claim that something "existed" when your source (again, not a very good one) says that it was decided to form something later, or that the British didn't prevent it when your source says no such thing.

Anyway, do you have anything to add regarding the British handover or are we done here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "Precluding wikipedia usually includes having a look at the wikipedia article" Oh? Precluding.

[35] tells us the National Council (Council of 37) 'existed' prior to the Mandate ending. It also tells us that what became Government order No 1 1948 stated "with the dissolution of the British Mandate in the Land of Israel, the National Executive would function as the interim Government of the State of Israel" The National Executive (Committee of 13), which also 'existed' before the Mandate ended, did become the interim Government of the State of Israel. So how exactly did the British prevent it? ... talknic (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to put it in simpler words so you won't have something to nitpick. Next time you might want to check if you're not using a wikipedia article posted on another site if you don't want to look foolish again.

Also, it would help if you paid closer attention to what we're talking about. The PP calls for the UNPC to select and establish a provisional council of government by April 1st. By not allowing the UNCP to enter until early May, the British prevented them from doing that. This is not rocket science. All it requires is a good faith attempt to understand what happened. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Let me put it in simple words. I don't include Wikipedia in searches for information that might be put in Wikipedia. After you pointed out the plagiarism, I dropped it and immediately put forward another source. Did it escape your notice? Why are you still talking about the first plagiarized source?

As for feeling foolish, why would I? The exercise of NOT looking in Wikipedia has resulted in finding the basis of 2nd March 1948 date and updating the article accordingly. (In the same manner as the other pre-existing Primary Source, which I notice you didn't objected to). You will now object to both no doubt? BTW here are plenty more Primary Sources littering the I/P issue. Let's address those another time shall we?

Noting the numerical order of UNGA Res 181 B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE and it's precise wording (NB: Primary Sources provided here to enable the finding of secondary sources that accurately represent them)

1) A Commission shall be set up ...etc The British "announced on 11 December 1947, that the Mandate would end on 15 May 1948, from which date the sole task of the British forces in Palestine would be to complete their withdrawal by 1 August 1948" (may need to check the time zones for the 15th or 14th date). Never the less, I believe 11 December 1947 was long before 9 January 1948 when the Commission first met and was tasked with "The progressive assumption of responsibility for the administration of Palestine as the Mandatory Power evacuates the country, pending the establishment of the independent States.

2) The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission .. etc (bearing in mind "pending the establishment of the independent States")

3) On its arrival in Palestine .... RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIFTH PLENARY MEETING HELD ON 14 MAY 1948 - III. RELIEVES the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.

We then move to 4) (bearing in mind "pending the establishment of the independent States")

4) The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of the Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State. You can only establish something in a State once the State exists and; States only exist AFTER they have been declared and; they couldn't be effectively declared until after the expiration of British control. "Only if "..(an).. "entity satisfies the traditional criteria for statehood by exercising independent and sovereign governmental control (including the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations) over a permanent population in a defined territory over which it has possession, can its recognition as a sovereign state be considered" [36]

4) continues (bearing in mind "pending the establishment of the independent States") "The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of the Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government."

Bearing in mind "pending the establishment of the independent States", it is quite obvious the British had no obligation to allow any entry by the UNPC until AFTER Statehood had been declared, because the UNPC had no Mandate to enter until "the establishment of the independent States". However on May 14th 1948 the the UNPC was relieved "from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947" ... talknic (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism? That's funny. Luckily for both of us, I'm not interested in the JNC article since what you did there is not right. But I don't care. Think about how much time I just saved for everyone at the small expense of a wikipedia article very few people probably read.

Anyway, thanks once again for your interpretation of primary sources. It's nice to see that despite being told repeatedly that walls of text are not conductive to discussion, you chose that format again to present your opinions. Unfortunately, as you are probably well aware by now, your interpretation has little value here (your little note notwithstanding). I will wait a little longer for Zero to provide the secondary sources he has, and if that doesn't happen I'll edit the article according to the secondary sources I provided above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Noted your disdain for thorough examination of issues in preference to accusations

Neither [37] & [38] are reliable on the point. The UNPC Mandate was '"pending the establishment of the independent States"Trygve Lie

This is what Zero had to say "On the basis of an extra source with a very detailed description of the UN implementation plan, I take back what I said about transitional government. Actually the plans called for the establishment of a "Provisional Council of Government" in each of the two states. This 'extra' source (oddly not provided, oddly not challenged by you). The plan itself is in fact the most detailed document available. In conjunction and central to the discussion, the UNPC Mandate quite clearly was "pending the establishment of the independent States"

Plagiarism of Wikipedia is funny? Even minor and less read articles still need to be accurate. You saved who time by doing what? Leaving an article with un-sourced content, against your own criteria ... talknic (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you think that your interpretation of a primary source trumps the views of two well known experts in the field. Unfortunately for you that's not how wikipedia works and once again you find yourself alone on one side of the debate.

As I said above, I'll wait a little longer for Zero to provide his source otherwise I'll add the stuff myself as there's obviously consensus to include this well sourced information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- I gave no interpretation of "The progressive assumption of responsibility for the administration of Palestine as the Mandatory Power evacuates the country, pending the establishment of the independent States.

Consensus to include un-sourced material, now consensus to add sources that don't accurately reflect the UNPC obligations. Quite obvious how it works talknic (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is being discussed here? Zero said he would add material from academic journal papers. Maybe we can gently chase him up. Until we see what he is going to come up with, there is no point in discussing sources. Have I got that entirely wrong, or what? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Zero is not the only editor on the block ... talknic (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Of course there's also relevant material on the 1948-1949 Arab war article: AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

...the British in the months before May 1948 did their best to encumber and block partition.[Karsh, Efraim (2002). The Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Palestine War 1948.] Trygve Lie wrote in his memoirs with some anger: "Great Britain had placed the Palestine matter before the Assembly with the declared conviction that agreement between the Arabs and Jews was unattainable. This did not deter the British representative, [Colonial Secretary] Arthur Creech Jones, from informing the Assembly that Britain would give effect only to a plan accepted by the Arabs and the Jews.... The British approach proved to be not in accord, in my opinion with the either the letter or the spirit of the partition plan. The United Kingdom could not progressively turn over authority to the Palestine Commission as the Assembly resolution provided, but only abruptly and completely on 15 May. Neither did it "regard favourably any proposal by the Commission to proceed to Palestine earlier than two weeks before the date of the termination of the Mandate". London would not permit the formation of the militia which the Assembly's resolution called for, nor would it facilitate frontier delimitation. The Assembly had further recommended that the United Kingdom endeavour to evacuate by 1 February a seaport and hinterland in the area of the Jewish state adequate to provide facilities for immigration".[Karsh, Efraim (2002). The Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Palestine War 1948.]

Trygve Lie's memoirs were written after leaving office, carrying no more weight than an opinion. Furthermore the source/Trygve Lie do not accurately represent UNGA Res 181 or the UNPC's mandate. "The British approach proved to be not in accord, in my opinion with the either the letter or the spirit of the partition plan."

"The United Kingdom could not progressively turn over authority to the Palestine Commission as the Assembly resolution provided, but only abruptly and completely on 15 May." -- NB: 'could not'. The UNPC was relieved "from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181" 14th May 1948 [39].

"Neither did it "regard favourably any proposal by the Commission to proceed to Palestine earlier than two weeks before the date of the termination of the Mandate". -- The commission's Mandate was "The progressive assumption of responsibility for the administration of Palestine as the Mandatory Power evacuates the country, pending the establishment of the independent States.[40]

"London would not permit the formation of the militia which the Assembly's resolution called for ..." -- The letter of UNGA res 181 says: "The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State" [41]

"nor would it facilitate frontier delimitation ..." -- A) The UNPC mandate was "pending the establishment of the independent States." B) It never arrived, it was relieved "from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 " 14th May 1948 and;

The letter of UNGA Res 181 says: "..shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine". Not 'delineate'.

Leaving only the failure to establish a port. Which was against the 'letter' of the Mandate for Palestine ... talknic (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So not only do you understand the Partition Plan better than historians who are experts in the field and contemporary British diplomats, we can add the UN Secretary General at the time to the list? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- The actual wording of guiding documents are not accurately conveyed. Maybe I've better eyesight. Perhaps you'd like to address the substance instead of continually making personal comments? When Trygve Lie gave his opinion, he wasn't the UN Secretary General. Like Stone, Schwebel, Lauterpacht weren't judges at the time they gave their most quoted opinions ... talknic (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You have better eyesight? That's hilarious. The substance is that your interpretation of the primary document is wrong. It's really that simple. We now have plenty of reliable sources that show you are wrong (not that it really matters because your interpretation is irrelevant), and per policy we can add this information to the article. As far as I'm concerned this discussion is over pending someone bringing reliable sources that contradict the ones we have. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- 1) A verbatim quote is not an interpretation. 2) In your opinion, what does "pending the establishment of the independent States" mean? 3) You have NO sources whose opinions accurately convey the actual letter of the guiding documents. 3) No matter how much you gloat, using consensus to purposefully include Secondary Sources which DO NOT accurately convey the guiding documents of the institutions they mention, is contrary to the purpose of consensus. At a minimum, their inclusion should be balanced with Secondary sources that DO accurately convey the guiding documents of the institutions they mention.

In his memoirs Trygve Lie, contradicts his earlier speech to the UNPC[42] ... talknic (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, do you really think an encyclopedia should use your opinion over those of expert historians, contemporary diplomats and the United Nations Secretary General who was in office when all this happened? Or do you just not know how to let stuff go? Are we having a "the world is flat" moment again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Uh? I'm not putting forward my opinion to be included in any encyclopedia. I'm showing the discrepancies in what you wish to put forward, by your own exacting criteria, wherein: I must provide Secondary Sources that exactly reflect the precise wording of documents. Now it seems your Secondary Sources do not.

An encyclopedia should accurately reflect events at the time. If expert historians et al do not accurately reflect the meaning of the actual wording of the documents governing the bodies they cite, they are in-accurate. In the instances you wish to put forward, the actual letter of the relevant documents show the expert historians et al to be in-accurate on those points.

The UNPC brief was "pending the establishment of the independent States" according to the UNPC itself. A secondary source is Trygve Lie's official speech [43], made when he was in office. In his 'opinion' in his memoirs, after leaving office, in the sources you wish to include, he contradicts his speech and the UNPC brief

The UNPC brief was "pending the establishment of the independent States". True or not? "May 14th 1948 the UNPC was relieved of its responsibilities under UNGA res 181. True or not? Mandate ended May 14th 1948. True or not? Statehood only occurred May 15th 1948. True or not? The only issue remaining is the port ... talknic (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, it's semi-ridiculous (and also somewhat typical of your way of handling sources) that you rely on Trygve Lie as authoritative in your message of "02:36, 26 October 2011" in this section, and then turn right around and disparage him in your message of "18:26, 26 October 2011"! Inconsistency much? in any case, just as with Alec Kirkbride, Trygve Lie was also in a position to know a whole lot better than you do what actually went down between December 1947 and May 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - - A) The first instance is not his memoirs [44]. It's a Secondary Source, citing Trygve Lie's speech, in which he voiced the UNPC's obligations "pending the establishment of the independent States", which is accurate to the UNPC mandate. B) The other secondary source/s are not mine and they show Trygve Lie is inconsistent ... talknic (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that I understand what the above debate is about, which is not far, the following. Karsh is RS. But the emphasis on "The British didn't do what they were meant to", is very much a pro-Israeli emphasis. The natural solution is to include it and to balance it. We should trawl to see whether other historians give a different gloss. As for the memoirs, I'm inclined to see them as primary sources. Sorry if this is a GCSE-level of historiography - better that than incomprehensibility. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - Neither Karsh or Pappe are RS on the points raised. They are inaccurate in respect to the letter of the documents governing the instances they discuss You'll find those documents cited above and the specific instances in which they are not RS

The UNPC mandate which states specifically "pending the establishment of the independent States" is confirmed by [45], a Secondary Source, citing Trygve Lie's speech, in which he voiced the UNPC's obligations "pending the establishment of the independent States", which is accurate to the UNPC mandate and which Trygve Lie, after leaving office, contradicts in the opinion he gave in his memoirs ... talknic (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@judith - Why do you think it's "very much a pro-Israel emphasis"? We have Pappe saying pretty much the same thing. I don't think anyone suspects him of being pro-Israel. Anyway, more sources are of course welcome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Finding that there are facts common to Karsh and Pappe is a relief. We don't expect them to have identical interpretations, and I believe that the interpretation "then the British ducked away and let the chaos go on" is, well it isn't a pro-British line, and I don't think the Palestinians are particularly committed to it. But who cares what I think anyway? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources showing the pro-British line then by all means let's have a look. I don't think there's much dispute that the British decided not to cooperate in the implementation of the plan, didn't try very hard to leave the area in a manageable state, or pass working bits of the administration (like the post, police, etc) on to anyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest searching for secondary sources that accurately reflect what the "British decided" in respect to the Termination of the Mandate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Judith -- It's really not a "pro-Israeli emphasis" to say that the British undermined the United Nations Palestine Commission, since members of British officialdom were admitting this in private (to their diaries and to each other) already in Spring 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)