Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations / United Nations / law  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Source: Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948[edit]

Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948, Michael J. Cohen, Princeton University Press, 14 Jul 2014:

  • pp294: the UN Partition Resolution vote.
  • p313: the delay imposed on the arrival of the UN 5-man commission.
  • pp333: meetings between Golda Meir and Abdullah.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For my previous semi-attempt to use that book as a source (partially derailed by talknic and partly by the fact that I'm not too good at details of sourcing and don't particularly enjoy it), see Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 3#British handover.2C 1948... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A vital information for this article is missing. Help to find the answer.[edit]

I know this isn't a forum but this information is rather important and it isn't discussed in this article as far as I am concerned. It should state which state would be contiguous and which state wouldn't since this is important in my opinion. There are two points in which the Arab state seem to divide the Jewish state into a total of three parts. One seems to have a railroad passing through it while the other doesn't even have a direct passage. Can someone explain so I can add some information on this or explain the questions I've mentioned above. Sorry if these are already explained but I couldn't find them.

Thanks anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talkcontribs) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There were two four-way crossing points, in addition to (in some versions of the plan) the Jaffa enclave. Neither the Jewish nor the Arab state would have been geographically contiguous, and (in part due to deliberate choices by the line-drawers) neither state would have been militarily defensible. AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

recent reverts[edit]

Does anyone have access to the source used for "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair..."? Religion in History: Conflict, Conversion and Coexistence page 265? Is there a question that the Arabs rejected any partition of any kind, and getting a bigger or smaller chunk wasn't really the issue? This is mentioned and sourced in the lead. So at minimum the above statement should be attributed (if not removed for fringiness), but I have no idea who wrote the essay or what exactly it says. Also "There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population..." (same source) does not seem to be very clear or very neutral. What is disproportionate here? Proportionate to what?

Also, is a reliable source? What exactly is it supporting in the text that was removed and restored? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Disproportionate refers to 33-35% of the population, owning 6% of the land in Mandate Palestine being given sovereignty over 56% of the land, hence the right to redefine all the land laws against the will of the land-holding Palestinians who would have ended up within Israel.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is that from the cited source? Can you post the relevant quote from the book? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani -- those percentages are rather less impressive when the percentage of desert land in the Negev is understood... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC) is a reasonable web site but I don't think it is wiki-citable and it should be replaced. Regarding the book, I can't see p265. However your "Is there a question" question is off-target. There is no contradiction between believing that Palestine belonged to the Arabs and believing that the partition plan was unfair, just as there is no contradiction between Zionist acceptance of the plan and their belief that the whole of Palestine belonged to the Jews. The usual description adopts a false symmetry. For the Arabs the plan moved away from what they believed was just, while for the Jews the plan moved towards it; that's not symmetrical. Zerotalk 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
They thought any partition would be unjust, not just this particular partition. The text implies that they thought 56/44 specifically was unfair. And the ref that was added does not support the text as it currently stands in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I previously posted this on Zero0000's talk page, but posting it here per his suggestion for discussion. I removed the claim that "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair" as the attitudes of the "Zionists" are not sourced, neither are those of the "Palestinians and Arabs", which are presented as having a uniform opinion and rejecting partition because it was "unfair".

These are claims that need to be sourced. This is a section dedicated to Arab reactions, and yet not a single citation in that paragraph leads me to any Arab from 1947 making any of the stated arguments. I don't see how we can claim Arabs thought something "as a rule" and then not quote a single one making any of the arguments presented (i.e. disproportionate land allocations, areas under Jewish control containing 45% of the Palestinian population, etc.) in 1947. Moreover, there is evidence that directly contradicts these arguments (such as Arab leadership rejecting Peel in 1937, despite it giving them 80% of the land, eroding the argument about rejection stemming from unfair land allocation, as this paragraph claims, and indicating a complete rejection of any partition plan, a position which is supported by actual statements from Arab leaders at the time). Until these claims are sourced, they should not be made.

Sammy1857 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The refs currently do not support the text. Moreover, they contradict other sourced text in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The mistake being made by both of you is puerile. You are either removing or adding verification tags to a passage, not because the information in it cannot be sourced (it is) but because you disagree with the language of the paraphrase. 'as a rule always' is a stupid phrase and unnecessary, and an experienced editor would simply have elided this. If there is some datum in the section not covered by the sources given, specify it, and the passage will be fixed with further sources. The basic data are well known to all students of the period.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me try again, although I really don't understand how someone could fail to comprehend the point here - the sources do not support the text in the article which states the Arabs rejected the partition plan because they found the idea of Jews getting a bigger share of the land unfair. None of your sources support this claim because it's simply untrue. They rejected the plan because they rejected partition on general.
Speaking of puerile, do you think adding more and more sources that do not support the text is beneficial to the article? If you continue doing that I will have no choice but to add a failed verification tag after every single one. That won't look good.
By the way, it's a good editing habit to check the article after you make an edit. You failed to properly close the ref you added and now there's large red text pointing that out. You might want to consider scrolling down and having a look after you press save. It only takes a second. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
NMMNG is correct in saying that the Palestinians would have rejected any partition plan, so the wording should not imply that they rejected it only because of the unfairness of the division. To that extent, I agree with NMMNG. However, the unfairness in Palestinian eyes is not irrelevant, since it was a key feature of the Arab case. As I said before, there is no contradiction here. A statement like "Palestine by right belongs to us but your so-called partition plan gives even more to the Zionists than their numbers suggest." is logically well structured. One needs to report both aspects in order to describe the situation correctly. Incidentally, to Sammy1857: the Zionists also rejected the 1937 plan so that argument doesn't work. What actually happened, see here, was that the Zionist Congress reaffirmed its belief that the Jewish people had a right to everything, including Transjordan, and rejected the plan. Zerotalk 04:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: the Peel partition, while The Congress rejected the Peel Commission's proposed borders for the Jewish state, it empowered its executive to "enter into negotiations with a view to ascertaining the precise terms of His Majesty's Government for the proposed establishment of a Jewish State." The Congress agreed to continue negotiating with the British for more favorable borders and did not reject the idea of partition outright. This was a view pushed forward by the 2 main Zionist leader of the time, Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, who advocated for the use of Peel as a groundwork for future negotiations.
Notably, this has absolutely no bearing on my point, which is that Arab leadership rejected Peel, and that this rejection did not stem from concerns about land allocation within the partition plan, but rather an opposition to partition outright. Zionist acceptance or rejection of Peel is entirely irrelevant to the Arab position, which is what was being discussed.
This goes back to my point regarding commentary on the allocation of land being largely irrelevant (and misleading), as Arab leadership did not reject the plan because the amount of land the Jewish state was given was not perfectly proportional to the Jewish population; rather, they rejected it because they believed partition was inherently unjust, and would have rejected it even if they received the majority of the land, fertile or otherwise, as exemplified by their rejection of Peel.
Sammy1857 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it was illogical, I said it was unsourced. Which it still is, despite the growing number of refs at the end of the sentence, none of which support it. If you want to say giving the Jews a larger part or one that included a lot of Arabs or whatever was unfair, I suspect you're going to have to find an observer who said it rather than the Arab leadership. IIRC they put the emphasis on rejecting any kind of partition.
Anyway, since we agree the wording is incorrect do you want to remove the sentence, change it, or what? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A piece of advice about editing wiki. When you have a multiply-sourced sentence or two, and think the sources do not support the statements, you can mechanically tag it, or, alternatively, review the texts and suggest a formulation that reflects the content of the sources. Adopting this latter course means work of course, but it is the constructive way to fix things. I think therefore that the appropriate thing here is for you to propose a rewrite of the text according to what the given sources say.Nishidani (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That's good (albeit somewhat obvious) advice. Unfortunately, it can't be applied in every case. For example here, I am at a complete loss as to what you were trying to say with all those refs you added. Wanna clue me in? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Why can't it be applied here? Let me help. Cite the exact words you find unsupported, bolding them, and I'll provide you with a solution.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Please re-read this discussion. I explained what the problem is several times. Since Zero has understood and agreed there's a problem, I am confident you too will be able to figure it out. Barring a solution soon, and considering I am unable to apply your sage advice to this situation, I will be removing the unsourced text per WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
My question was rhetorical, since I didn't expect removalists do ever do anything constructive. I'll leave Zero to express his own views, which, however, I venture to think you miscaracturize (sic) as a warrant for removing a passage as unsourced which is however easily modulated with preexisting sources with a few tweaks. Excision is not what he appears to me to be endorsing, though, as you suggest, I may be misreading. Recapitulating, let me simplify the obvious.
You want sourcing for this:

(a)Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, (b)Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair..."

(a) is sourced to Simha Flapan's thesis as outlined in Sean F. McMahon's book and in Youssef M. Choueiri's book.
(b) reflects what J. Bowyer Bell is quoted as saying in William B. Quandt, Paul Jabber and Ann Mosely Lesch's book: 'In retrospect it is all too easy to point out the Arab blunders, their missed opportunities, their intransigence. It is only just, however, to note that it is easy to urge compromise of another’s principle, to urge someone else to give up half a loaf of his own bread. Surely the Arab argument had much justice. Shorn of biblical quotations, emotional references to the “final solution” and loaded statistics, the Zionist case looked no stronger, and probably somewhat weaker, than the Arab case to disinterested observers. To the Arabs the demand for an Arab Palestine seemed neither novel nor extreme; it seemed just and in accordance with international practice.' ('just' here, unless you don't note it, is an English synonym for 'fair').
Of course one must satify the consumer. If this is not enough, I'll provide two more of a dozen citations which bear on that formulation which troubles you, found in a few minutes googling (what I expect serious wikipedians to do before posting tags on a page, a practice which means:'I'm unhappy with what's been done here, so please do more work to make me feel comfortable') Here's two more sources to help you modulate the sentence you are uneasy with.

‘This proposed partition was seen as unfair by the Palestine Arabs, both because they sought a government for the entirety of Palestine and because they found the particular territorial division unfair for allocating the bulk of the territory to the projected Jewish state, even though Jews were less numerous than Arabs.’(John Quigley, The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, Cambridge University Press, 2012 p.7)

'The Arabs attacked the partition resolution as being unfair and contrary to the UN Charter. They contended that the UN had disregarded the rights of the Arab majority in Palestine by giving the Palestine Jews, then representing one-third of the total population, more territory and resources than those allotted to the Arab state and by relegating well over 400,000 Arabs to minority status in the Jewish State.' Fred J. Khoury, ‘United States Peace Efforts’, in Malcolm H. Kerr (ed.) Elusive Peace in the Middle East, SUNY Press 1975 pp.21-22

If anything, what was unsatisfactory in the formulation, apart from the dumb English of 'as a rule always reiterated' which triplicates the same concept by plethoric synonyms, was the neglect to mention that one of the primary Arab/Palestinian complaints was that the Partition Plan violated the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Otherwise, even the phrasing I object to, 'as a rule always reiterated' can find textual support.

'The Arab delegates to the General Assembly, while opposing the very principle of partition, repeatedly maintained that the terms of the partition proposed by UNSCOP were manifestly unfair to the Arab side, because the Jews, who represented only one-third of the country’s population, would receive a disproportionate part of its territory, more than 50 per cent,’ Alexander Yakobson, ‎Amnon Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish Nation-state and Human Rights, Taylor & Francis, 2009 p.19.

That's the gist that several minutes of googling trawled this morning, after I asked you to actually look at some books to find a creative solution to the quibble, rather than express disgruntlement. Now that I've done your homework, perhaps you could review the sources already in the text, take on board those now added here, and suggest a remodulation of the sentence. It's not hard. Zero no doubt will have his own suggestions, and I'd happily defer to any solution of the kind suggested here, or, more probably, one of his own. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. After having to ask less than two dozen times (or as you'd probably put it, "several dozen" times) at last a source that supports the unsourced part of the sentence, although none of them support the "A however B" formulation. Please be careful not to SYNTH what Rubinstein says about the Arabs objecting to any partition in principle and also this specific plan in particular, with what "Zionists"[who?] attributed to them[according to whom?]. I agree that their finding it contrary to UN principles should be noted. As it happens, it's noted 3 times in this article. One of which is a couple paragraphs above the text we're discussing. Feel free to combine it with this text if you think that makes more sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, my impression is you are being silly, awesome hairsplitting to get someone else to alter a few words in a sentence otherwise amply sourceable, while refusing to say how you would construct that sentence. I'm not here at your beck. The simplest thing to do here, since you refuse to pull your own finger out and make a nugatory but constructive suggestion as to how to adjust a word or two, is ask for third parties to review the point. Otherwise the sentence stands, not quite satisfactory, but thus because you won't do the obvious edit. Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition". This sentence, appears in the article and is a result of a compromise in a wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We didn't change that. As Zero correctly noted, you can reject the whole thing while still saying this specific plan is unfair. My objection was to the wording that implied they rejected it only because of the specific land percentages (and the fact it wasn't sourced. And the way it was SYNTHyly connected to the previous sentence). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That map (ugly red one of Jewish land ownership)[edit]

For the record, the blotches of red on that map are essentially identical in position and shape with the pretty blue and green blotches on Map 4 of the map collection made for the Anglo-American Survey. The original says that the data was "compiled by J. Weitz and Z. Lifshitz on behalf of the Jewish Agency". All the Palestine Arab Refugee Office have added is the armistice lines and DMZs. I could replace it with the AAS map, but actually it is useful to see where the armistice line lay with respect to the land ownership. Zerotalk 23:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if they're "essentially" incidental to some other map. These guys don't say what source they were using. This specific map was produced by a partisan group so it should be attributed. Do you have a problem with this attribution? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The attribution is correct, but also misleading as it invites the reader to infer that this just an Arab claim about land ownership. But it isn't. Also we don't usually attribute images in their captions — maybe we should, but I do notice tons of photos from the IDF archives and similar sources on Wikipedia without attribution except on their image pages at Commons. We should either attribute everything from "partisan sources" or only attribute controversial items (which this map is not). Zerotalk 03:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The source for the underlying data in this map is unclear. It came from a partisan source. I think something like this should be attributed. Feel free to attribute anything else you think should be attributed. I would not at all object to every photo being attributed. There's a big hole in Wikipedia's sourcing policies when it comes to photos in my opinion. Not only there mind you, but anyone can post pretty much whatever photo they like and caption it as they please. The only restriction is copyright. That can't be good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Yishuv purchased lands in forbidden locations (e.g. Bisan valley) as well, using a disguised ownership . Does this map includes those plots as well? Ykantor (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of Jewish owned land shown the Beisan area but the map doesn't indicated when it was purchased. I think it is safe to say that any sales that were being hidden from the British authorities were not on the map. Zerotalk 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the original is available in a few archives: [1], [2], [3]. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)