Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

In the section "Reports of pressure for the Plan" the article states: "The Democratic Party, a large part of whose contributions came from Jews,[82] informed Truman that failure to live up to promises to support the Jews in Palestine would constitute a danger to the party."

This is an antisemitic trope implying that Jews control the government through money. The cited source does not mention anything about the role of money or donations in the decision. Using the same cited source, a more accurate statement would be:

"Truman was under intense pressure from members of Congress and constituents to endorse the USCOP proposal, having received 40-50 letters of support from Congress in the month of September and 35,000 letters from American Jews. However he remained undecided. Following an emotional appeal from Eddie Jacobson, who reminded him "the future of one half million Jews in Europe depends on what happens at the present meeting of the United Nations," Truman instructed Secretary of State Marshall to make public American support for the Partition." Knowledgeispower222 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The cited source does not mention anything about the role of money or donations in the decision. Per the citation, on page 162, it says:

"Mcgrath told Forrestal that Jewish sources were responsible for a major part of the contributions to the party and that much of the money was given "with a distinct idea on the part of the givers that they will have an opportunity to express their views and have them seriously considered on such questions as the present Palestine question"". Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Map of voting countries is wrong

The map of the UN partition vote in 1947 is wrong. It shows Algeria in green indicating that it voted yes but in the text Algeria is not even mentioned. Liberia should be green but it is grey on the map. The map needs to be rechecked for accuracy and fixed. 2001:8F8:1B6B:4EA3:881A:D5D7:3C38:845A (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Algeria was part of France at the time, so it is green to represent France's yes vote. Liberia is green on the map. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

@דוב: this sentence your removed is sourced in the article "who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time", revert yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the Zionists representatives heavily invested and did their best to persuade the UN member states to vote in favor of the plan. It's not that they accepted because that was what was proposed. They wanted it! It was a great deal for the Zionist movement and a big improvement on the previous deal proposed in the Peel 1937 Commission proposal. It's well known and recorded the festivities and happiness of the Jewish population when they heard the news!

I will note that the 1937 Peel deal too was accepted by the Zionist leadership in the pretext of further negotiations! And rejected by the Arabs. (Note, there was far more sever opposition to the 1937 plan, yet the plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency, the international body representing the World Zionist Organization, and the leadership of the Mapai (Labor) Party, the dominant Jewish force on the ground).

Please note the historical context and backing up. Due to how contentious the topic is, you must note that there are multiple scholars who seek to harm the Zionist movement and its legitimacy, therefore one must be extra careful. I'm not saying you're at fault. It's an easy mistake especially if you're not very familiar with the history.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

I Included above several sources from different perspectives as well as neutral ones.

Good editing ahead! Homerethegreat (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Dubious set of sources, also this revert has a false edit summary as well being edit warring. There are sources in the article body as well as in this discussion here supporting the removed material. I suggest you self revert your disruptive edit. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of sources supporting this or something like this; Baruch Kimmerling - Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."

Imperial Israel : the history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Palumbo, Michael 1990 https://archive.org/details/imperialisraelhi0000palu/page/18/mode/2up Bloomsbury p.19 "The Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country."

The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations Persistent Analytics and Practices Sean F. McMahonRoutledge 2010 "Ben-Gurion was not alone in his tactical acceptance of partition.

Flapan "[Zionist] acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country [Palestine]'and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction—a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious."

I haven't looked that hard I daresay there are more, the point is that it is not NPOV to baldly say that the Jews accepted without context.

Undue. Menachem Begin doesn't represent the whole Zionist movement. Not what Morris says ("The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal"). A biased source like Flapan might belong in article's body, provided it's attributed, but definitely not in lead. Dovidroth (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the four sources I just put up mention Menachem Begin. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The main point of my comment still stands. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Morris is a single source. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It would help to have sources with quotes directly from Zionist leaders stating their intentions, instead of a bunch of commentators merely stating that “Zionists viewed…” or “Zionists invested all their efforts…” Mistamystery (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean a bunch of independent reliable secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t doubt your confidence in the sources being independent and reliable and secondary, but actual quotes or direct citations (given some very unclear generalizing by said sources) would be better. Mistamystery (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

When that comes up, the complaint is that said Zionist quotes do not represent all Jews so historians generalizing what they have researched is better. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Quality is more important than quantity. I can look for more sources if you want. Dovidroth (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This revert is becoming tiresome. First, ONUS is not a reason for removal, second, the material is supported by reliable sources, third, you have not produced any additional sources to support your position and fourthly there is this discussion still ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not The United Nations Partition Plan as told by Benny Morris, all significant views is not just Benny Morris' views. nableezy - 13:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And hold on a minute, Morris does support "stepping stone". Righteous Victims p 237:

Weizmann and Ben-Gurion pressed for a solution based on partition. Said Weizmann: "The Jews would be fools not to accept it, even if [the land they were allocated] were the size of a table cloth." Both saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land of Israel," Ben-Gurion was quoted as saying.118 He wrote to his son Amos: “[A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning.… Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state … will serve as a very potent lever in our historical efforts to redeem the whole country."

Both this and this edit summaries are blatantly false. nableezy - 14:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This quote refers to the partition proposed by Peel Commission in the late 1930s. This belongs to that article and possible to articles about Ben Gurion and Weizmann but not to this article. Alaexis_¿question? 09:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So with the sourcing now unimpeachable, we're switching to WP:ONUS? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. This quote simply has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 10:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

With all the back and forth on this I forgot this one:

"Although the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, it did not accept the proposed borders as final and Israel's declaration of independence avoided the mention of any boundaries. A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed. Although the borders were 'bad from a military and political point of view,' Ben Gurion urged fellow Jews to accept the UN Partition Plan, pointing out that arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements'. The idea of partition being a temporary expedient dated back to the Peel Partition proposal of 1937. When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine.'"p.193 Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond David McDowall 1990 I.B. Tauris ISBN 13:9780755612581

Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ben Gurion's second quote ('I see...') also refers to the Peel Partition proposal. The first part still does not support the current wording in the lede (Zionist leaders viewed the plan as a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over the whole of Palestine). Alaexis_¿question? 13:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a reasonable summary of the various sources, suggest a different summary of the same sources (eg "The Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country." Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What several sources? If we only have McDowall, the most we could say would be "According to McDowall, a state in part of Palestine was seen as a step towards a future larger state." Alaexis_¿question? 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you not read this section and the article? I included above and will recopy here:

(copy)"Here are a number of sources supporting this or something like this; Baruch Kimmerling - Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."

Imperial Israel : the history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Palumbo, Michael 1990 https://archive.org/details/imperialisraelhi0000palu/page/18/mode/2up Bloomsbury p.19 "The Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country."

The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations Persistent Analytics and Practices Sean F. McMahonRoutledge 2010 "Ben-Gurion was not alone in his tactical acceptance of partition.

Flapan "[Zionist] acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country [Palestine]'and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction—a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious."

I haven't looked that hard I daresay there are more, the point is that it is not NPOV to baldly say that the Jews accepted without context."(endcopy) Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will review the sources. I should say that I found this discussion oddly similar to the one about the acceptance of the 1967 borders by Hamas. Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Naturally, it's harder to prove the lack of something than its presence, however I've been able to find a number of books which discuss the partition without mentioning the supposed plans of subsequent territorial expansion. It is clear from Selfstudier's post above that there are historians who consider it important, so per WP:NPOV we should attribute this viewpoint.

• Israels Moment International Support for and Opposition to Establishing the Jewish State, 1945–1949, by Jeffrey Herf (Cambridge University Press, 2022). On pages 21, 22 he writes about the beginning of the civil war right after the UN resolution was passed and about Ben Gurion's declaration but nothing about the subsequent expansion plans.

• Palestine, 1948. War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem by Yoav Gelber, Sussex Academic Press, 2006. On pp. 68-69 we read about a debate within the ranks of the Jewish leadership (Sasson vs Eitan) regarding the various ways of implementing the partition and attempted compromises with various Arab leaders. It shows that there was no unified view of the "plan as a stepping stone to future territorial expansion."

• Galnoor doesn't mention any expansion plans in The Zionist debates on partition (1919–47), part of The Two-State Solution The UN Partition Resolution of Mandatory Palestine - Analysis and Source (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013), pp. 14-15. Alaexis_¿question? 08:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If no RS say expansion wasn't on the cards and are simply silent on it then that does not counter or contradict the ranks of historians saying that it very much was. Sources that simply have an absence of detail on the matter do not offer a contrast to sources with more detail. Unless an RS says there were no such strategic conceptions then there is only one POV available, and that is the NPOV of the historians stating that the partition was viewed as a stepping stone to expansion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to write the same argument but Iskandar has beat me to it. The historians you mentioned haven't contradicted Morris, they simply didn't investigate his claim, and that's a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If we want to say that this view is only "some historians" then we need a source that says that, not just an editor opinion that it is so. Also Ben Gurion is linked to Peel and the partition plan in one source as evidence that his views at the time of Peel had not changed by the time of the partition plan. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: How is historians any better? The Arab position is spoken in WP voice but the Zionist position is spoken in "Historians say"? This inconsistency isn't neutral. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Amend it as you see fit? Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What extended dispute are you talking about? There is no opposition to this edit on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This thread has not arrived at a consensus to make that statement in wiki-voice as your edit and edit summary would suggest. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please let me know which consensus exists to make the adjacent statement about Arab leaders' position in wiki-voice as the current version would suggest? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is really a problematic conflation here. Using "historians say" in the sentence is one issue, and whether this piece of information should be in lede is a separate issue. As seen from the discussion above, especially the last replies, there is indeed a consensus for the addition of this material in the lede, which serves as a summary for the body.

As for "historians say", this has not been directly discussed and is only a recent addition; the editor who wants its insertion has the burden on them for its inclusion to reach consensus here on the talk page, while demonstrating to us how this inclusion will not ruin consistency in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not as complicated as you may think. We need affirmative consensus for the content that goes on the article page. It doesn't have to do with otherstuff that may or may not have consensus and "conflation" doesn't demonstrate affirmative consensus. At best, only confusion, about which -- you may be right -- may exist. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Math (2)

"2" because it was archived.

This edit now gives AS 42% (11,110 m2), JS 56% (14,100 m2) and 2% (Jerusalem Bethlehem and the adjoining area).

So are we going with that instead of the BBC? (which is still in the article atm). Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with that. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Verification citations in lead.

The following statement in the lead section uses failed and irrelevant citations:

"Historians say that acceptance of the plan was a tactical step and that some Zionist leaders viewed the plan as a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over the whole of Palestine" referencing sources: [11],[12],[5]

Sources [5] and [12] do not support at all the above statement. The quote found in source 12, from the Historian Benny Morris's book, "The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal" does not support the statement.

Source [11] is irrelevant. The text on this topic in this reference is (pages 8-9 in the book): "Second, it sought to increase the territory assigned by the UN to the Jewish state". This statement does not support the lead statement "territorial expansion over the whole of Palestine", as it does not mention a plan to expand over the whole of Palestine.

In conclusion, the statement is not supported by the citations

Suggestion for edits:

1. Not use the cited sources to make this statement (i.e., remove them from the statement).
2. Remove the statement: There is no indication of a consensus among Historians on this topic, and therefore it is subjective and potentially misleading.

Dd659 (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously in the section Unexplained removal above and as well prior to that (see archives). Added further references and quotes for clarity, there is also more material in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The added references [11][12][13][14][15] do not support the claim : "...expansion over the whole of Palestine". The historians in these references did not say "over the whole Palestine", this is Template:Failed verification.

In ref 11 the historian says "A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed". The historian chose "larger" over "entire" or "whole". The statement starts with "Historians say", and this adds no credibility.

I suggest finding sources that support the statement (I couldn't), removing it, or deleting "expansion over the whole of Palestine". Dd659 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to removal of the whole of Palestine and have made that edit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Currently the body paragraph under the Reactions does not seem to fully support the lead's sentence: "Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine."

Here is the paragraph under "Reactions":

Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state. Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them." Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.

So would it be more accurate to change the lead's sentence to "Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that Zionist leaders saw the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine."? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion. The source cited supports over the whole of Palestine in the quote:

"Although the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, it did not accept the proposed borders as final and Israel's declaration of independence avoided the mention of any boundaries. A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed. Although the borders were 'bad from a military and political point of view,' Ben Gurion urged fellow Jews to accept the UN Partition Plan, pointing out that arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements'. The idea of partition being a temporary expedient dated back to the Peel Partition proposal of 1937. When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. The statement starts with "Historians say". In the source, this one historian is saying " a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed". Larger is not "whole" or "entire". There is a big difference.

The Ben Gurion quote does not make the statement credible: (1) it dates a decade earlier, (2) it refers a different proposal, and (3) B"G is not a historian. Dd659 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It no longer says "historians say". This is not my analysis, this is a direct quote from the source used. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that for your first ever edit to WP you would come to this obscure page to make an edit request. As a non EC editor you are permitted to do that but now kindly refrain from further comments and leave this to qualified editors to discuss. There is evidence from Flapan that BG held the same opinion after the partition resolution. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In effort to keep this important page accurate, qualified editors need to replace the quote from 1937 the statement with (1) the evidence you mentioned from Flapan; (2) remove the 4 irrelevant citations; (3) Say "Ben Gurion" instead of "Zionist leaders". Dd659 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have the concept of "qualified editors". Anyone can edit, and Talk pages are not reserved for "confirmed editors". On the contrary: all editors are encouraged to come to the Talk page to discuss improvements to articles. Chasing newbies away from Talk pages violates Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour Thank you for the comment and reference to the WP article.

To keep the discussion productive, my suggestion is to revert to the edit that @Selfstudier agreed to: "Historians say that acceptance of the plan was a tactical step and that some Zionist leaders viewed the plan as a stepping stone to future territorial". This statement is supported by the cited sources. Dd659 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ARBECR A qualified editor in this area has 500 edits under their belt. Just because I agreed to an edit, does not mean I have consensus for it, I was reverted so the discussion will continue.Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR does not limit relevant edit suggestions in the talk page.

To continue the discussion the current version of the statement is not credibly referenced. The quote from 1937 the statement adds no credibility, and the other 4 references do not include evidence that Zionist leaders aimed for "conquest of all of Palestine".

Please include valid sources or revert. Dd659 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit request is not done for lack of consensus. You may submit a new edit request if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Great. The edit request is to remove a statement that lacks creible sources.

This is the statement: "Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.". The statement lacks credible sources showing a desire "territorial expansion over all of Palestine", and uses a quote from Ben Gurion dating a decade earlier in response to a different partition plan. Referencing this source is misleading. The statement should be therefore removed to avoid confusion of readers. Dd659 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - the sources, taken together and with material in the article body support the sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The wording "all of" is a strong statement that requires concrete positive evidence. Dd659 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Please do not be disruptive and wait for other editors to comment. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The only source that says anything about "all of Palestine" part is Ben Gurion's quote (I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine). This is a primary source and we cannot conclude from this utterance that this was the Zionist leaders' intention. We need secondary sources to interpret it. Unless they can be found, "all of Palestine" should go. Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It is interpreted by a secondary source, by Flaphan:

p23 Flapan "Ben-Gurion continued to emphasize that Biltmore [1942] referred to a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine. At a meeting of the Histadrut Council at Kfar Vitkin, he explained that “this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state”, and he specifically advised “not to identify the Biltmore Program with a Jewish state in part of Palestine."

p31 Flaphan "By some twist of vision, historians have generally taken Ben-Gurion’s acceptance of the idea of a Jewish state in less than the whole of Palestine as the equivalent of an acceptance of the entire UN resolution. Yet, as we have seen, Ben-Gurion had always viewed partition as the first step toward a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon."

and there is also

p32 Flaphan "Menahem Begin, the leader of the Irgun underground, declared that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized." Nevertheless, while he continued vigorously to proclaim the vision of a state on both sides of the Jordan, he agreed to accept a Jewish state in part of Palestine on the condition that statehood be declared immediately upon termination of the British Mandate (scheduled for May 15, 1948). He was sure that the creation of the state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."

Prescient, huh? Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read the quote in Flaphan's quote: "historians have generally taken Ben-Gurion’s acceptance of the idea of a Jewish state in less than the whole of Palestine as the equivalent of an acceptance of the entire UN resolution.". So in Flaphan's own words historians generally interpreted Ben-Gurion's actions as an acceptance of the entire UN resolution. I suggest being very careful in the wording so to reduce risk the of confirmation bias.

The quote from p32 again does not indicate that Begin desired to take over the entire territory, it does indicate a desire for territorial expansion. Dd659 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

We are already aware of your opinion, I will ask you once more to leave this to extended confirmed editors to determine whether there is a consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This was a response to the new information you added to the discussion. Please refrain from silencing voices from non EC editors to the discussion according to WP:ARBECR. Dd659 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, your constant interruptions amount to disruption and I expect it to stop. Your opinion does not count toward any consensus, you are allowed only to file edit requests and nothing else. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

> I will ask you once more to leave this to extended confirmed editors to determine whether there is a consensus.

No! The determination of consensus is not reserved for extended confirmed editors; the only privilege of such editors is to directly edit protected pages. Please stop this gatekeeping immediately; newbies are specifically encouraged to participate in talk-page discussions. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR is very clear and you aren't allowed to invent your personal interpretation. You have exceeded your rights here and you should stop. Zero^talk 03:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing quotes.

First, I think that @Dd659 has made a good point. Flapan acknowledges that the consensus is that Ben-Gurion accepted the entire resolution.

Second, it does not follow from Flapan's Ben-Gurion had always viewed partition as the first step toward a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon." (here he refers to the preceding period, hence past perfect tense) that Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine..

Also, Ben-Gurion and Begin were not the only Zionist leaders, so it's also a synthesis. Alaexis_¿question? 21:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't like "all of Palestine" much as I don't think there were any formal desirable boundaries. Think of the Sinai, which was never considered part of Palestine. After the 1967 war, Israel erased the Negev-Sinai border from official maps and established settlements. I think that more vague expressions like "territorial expansion when the possibility arose" would cover it better and have more source support. Zero^talk 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The following two sources acknowledge that the acceptance territorial concessions in the partition plan by Zionist leaders reflected prioritization of sovereignty over territory.

Elad Ben-Dror, The success of the Zionist strategy vis-à-vis UNSCOP

Israel Affairs, 20:1, 19-39

p. 34: "The Zionists’ willingness to give up control of the entire country was a step that the leadership viewed as essential and imperative, although it preferred not to say so publicly, either back then or in the many years since. But there is no doubt that the strategic decision to support partition and the effective presentation of that resolve to UNSCOP were critical elements in the affair, exerting a major impact on the outcome of UNSCOP’s work".

Itzhak Galnoor, The Zionist Debates on Partition (1919-1947)

Israel Studies , Summer, 2009, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer, 2009), pp. 74-87

p.86: "In the key territorial decisions made by the Zionist movement in the pre-state period, it was willing to consider trading territory for other values. The primary "other" value was political sovereignty. Jewish attitudes toward territory in the decisions of 1919, 1937, and 1947 reflect a duality. Territorial attitudes were emotional and inseparable from a sense of collective identity, fatherland, motherland, and homeland, leading to expressive positions. Territory was seen as a tangible resource, a means for satisfying specific needs-livelihood, security, economic viability, social development, natural resources, etc.-leading to instrumental positions.

The Zionist agreement to partition in 1937 and 1947 indicated a willingness to define national interests as a choice between values that are contradictory in a particular political context. It is irrelevant whether the willingness to forego territory was merely tactical, as territorial concessions were viewed as a very big risk and irreversible. Accordingly, the pre-1948 decisions of the Zionist movement fell rather consistently on the side of instrumental pragmatism, and this approach dominated Israeli policy until 1967". Dd659 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: You reverted my initial removal of "over all of Palestine". What is your position on this now? Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

While waiting for that, added to refs:

Imperial Israel : the history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Palumbo, Michael 1990 https://archive.org/details/imperialisraelhi0000palu/page/18/mode/2up Bloomsbury p.19 "The Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country." Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And this one (was in the body without the quote)

Sean F. McMahon, The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations, Routledge 2010 p. 40. "The Zionist movement also accepted the UN partition plan of 1947 tactically. Palumbo notes that “[t]he Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country.” Similarly, Flapan states that “[Zionist] acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country [Palestine]”; and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction — a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious.” Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: What is your question exactly? This piece of information that Zionists viewed the UN partition plan as a stepping stone to conquering all of Palestine is well-known. A quick search gave me the following supporting source:

“ Similarly, Zionist acceptance of the UN partition plan did not signal an end to the movement's territorial ambitions. Ben-Gurion, for example, rejected several fundamental aspects of the UNSCOP plan—such as the proposed borders and the establishment of an Arab state—and noted that "arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.' "36 Israel Galili, head of the Haga-nah National Command, was even more direct in an address in April 1948:

"The Jews' assent to the General Assembly's resolution does not signify acquiescence to partition... The fullness of our strength shall determine the territorial limits of our independence in Eretz-Yisra'el. The political boundaries will correspond in extent to the land wrested from the enemy. "37

None of this evidence regarding Zionist ambitions to establish a Jewish state in all of Palestine should be interpreted as meaning that Zionist leaders had a plan to conquer the entire region by force of arms. On the contrary, the Jewish side celebrated the partition resolution and agreed to cooperate with UN authorities in implementing the plan. It merely shows that in the years preceding partition, mainstream Zionism aspired to redeem all of Palestine and viewed a Jewish state in part of the region as a springboard from which to expand. Zionists, in short, hoped to settle in and annex-peacefully or by force—the rest of Palestine in the future.

”

p187 Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I was initially prepared to go along with the request to remove the all of Palestine bit until you reverted, since when I have been taking another look and have changed my mind, it is more than adequately supported by sources and you have just provided another, as will I:

https://pij.org/articles/99/legitimization-or-implementation-on-the-un-partition-plan---the-paradox-of-the-1947-un-partition-plan "Historical evidence shows the Zionist movement's position vis-à-vis the partition plan at that time was two-sided. On the one hand, it accepted the plan because it purported to legitimize the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine but, at the same time, leading Zionists wished to use this legitimization as a basis to acquire more land and to expel the Palestinians from the Jewish state........The Zionist position towards the partition plan can thus be seen as a step toward judaizing Palestine in order to deprive the Palestinians (in coordination with Britain and some of the Arab regimes) of their right to self determination. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, great, now we have a couple of quite direct reliable sources to support this claim. The challenge is how to merge the information from these sources in the body, and reflect that in the lede without overusing in-line citations there. Any idea where we can start? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The only reason the lead is overcited atm is because of this ongoing discussion, once it is finished (it isn't yet), we can fix everything up. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should we create a motivations/line of thinking section for the Zionist and Palestinian leaderships positions? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would prefer to settle this "all of Palestine" issue first, although I think your suggestion has merit. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution Journal Article Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution, Walid Khalidi, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 5-21 Another one for the pile. The whole thing should be mandatory reading but for this purpose, the part that starts "But was Ben-Gurion's "return" to partition in 1946-47 genuine?.." And I am going to change the section title put up by the non EC editor since it is now clear that none of the citations were either failed or unverified. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't back the implication in controversial sentence

If I am not mistaken then none of the many sources attached to the following sentence fully back it: "Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine". I am speaking specifically of the words "over all of". If they are replaced by the single word "in" then the sources do support the claim; but as it stands the implication in the sentence is not supported in the sources, because while Ben Gurion mentioned the borders were not final (probably to appease certain voices), the sources do not claim that the intention was ever to take "all of" Palestine, and the phrase "territorial expansion over all of Palestine" certainly does imply that, it seems to me, and it is as far as I can tell not supported in the sources provided. Quickly-now (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Substantive misrepresentation of what the Mandate was in the 1st paragraph of the Background section.

Currently, it states: 'The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917 British commitment to the Balfour Declaration, for the establishment in Palestine of a "National Home" for the Jewish people, with the prerogative to carry it out.'

In fact, the Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nations Mandate which referenced it, pledged to create a national home for the Jews with one condition: 'that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country'.

There was a world of difference between unconditionally creating a home for the Jews in Palestine, and doing it while adhering to the condition that the rights of non-Jews be protected. And this is not just an academic point - I've struck people who seem to try to exploit a misconception that the mandate was unconditional, that the Brits never had a mandate to create a Palestinian state, that their only mandate was to turn the entire territory of Palestine into a Jewish state, even though the majority of the population was Arab. Minimising the infringement of the rights of non-Jews while creating a Jewish state required the simultaneous creation of a Palestinian state, and indeed a much larger one than the one that was approved by the United Nations on 29 Nov 1947, which awarded Jews control of roughly 2.5 times the per-capita area of land that was awarded to Arabs (56% of the land to the Jews, 42% to the Arabs, a ratio of one-and-a-third to one, and a population ratio of 630,000 Jews to 1,181,000 Arabs - 1947 figures, estimated by Sergio DellaPergola (2001), drawing on the work of Bachi (1975), via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) ).

Article 2 of the Mandate, similarly says 'The Mandatory [Britain] shall be responsible... also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.'

It's not possible to shorten the description of the Mandate so much that it completely omits the requirement to preserve the rights of non-Jews, without completely changing its meaning.

MathewMunro (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Citation needed' tag in the 'Proposed partition' section.

There are a couple of a sentence in the 'Proposed partition' section that go: 'The Plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish State. In many specific cases,^{[citation needed]} this meant including areas of Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish state.'

There's a table just a few paragraphs below that cites Data from the Report of UNSCOP: 3 September 1947: CHAPTER 4: A COMMENTARY ON PARTITION

In a side issue, the article says the figures are from 1945, but the reference says they're from 'up to the end of 1946', see quote below:

'The figures given for the distribution of the settled population in the two proposed States, as estimated on the basis of official figures up to the end of 1946, are approximately as follows: 166/'

	Jews	Arabs and others	total
The Jewish State	498,000	407,000	905,000
The Arab State	10,000	725,000	735,000
City of Jerusalem	100,000	105,000	205,000

In addition there will be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins, cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons.'

Firstly, I think given these figures alone, it's highly implausible that it's not true that in many cases, areas of Arab majority were included in the Jewish state.

But if you do need a reference, see https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/159/un-partition-plan-1947, by Alex Winder: 'Of Mandate Palestine's sixteen districts, nine were allotted to the Jewish state, only one of which had a Jewish majority'. One of the references cited by the author of the above article is https://www.palquest.org/sites/default/files/Revisiting_the_UNGA_Partition_Resolution-Walid_Khalidi.pdf, and in that article, Walid Khalidi states:

' Examining the three components of the envisaged Jewish state, one notes that in the southern sector-the Negev-the Jews numbered 1,020 whereas the Arabs numbered 103,820... In the northern sector-Eastern Galilee-the Palestinian population was three times greater than the Jewish population (86,200 as against 28,750)'. And excluding Haifa and Tel Aviv, 'the Jews constituted a minority in the countryside of this sector [the central sector] as well.' [End Note. 25]: 'Population figures are based on Report of Sub-Committee 2 [of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine to Ad Hoc Committee, 11 November 1947], paragraph 56ff and Appendices A, B, and C.' MathewMunro (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, if you believe in the Israeli claim of massive illegal Arab immigration, the numbers here would be even greater and likely the entire Jewish Partition would be majority Arab.

By the way, here is the link to the Subcommittee 2: http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Chapter1.htm

Mcdruid (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that the tag is there because the text is written as if this was intentional. Does any of the sources you've mentioned say it explicitly? Alaexis_¿question? 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it really accurate to call European Jews 'refugees' after the Nazis were defeated?

Currently, a sentence in the Background section reads: 'In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine'.

I'm not so sure that internally displaced people, or even cross-border refugees legally retain refugee status after the repressive regime that made them refugees ceases to exist. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get granted refugee status by any Western country today under those circumstances.

Below I quote from the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/refugees.pdf

'Article 1. - Definition of the term "refugee"...

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:...

(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality...'

That convention was not yet in force, however, it is relevant to the contemporary use of the word refugee. But also, they wouldn't have been refugees under the 10 February 1938 Convention anyway - https://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8d12a4.html, as it covered: '(a) Persons possessing or having possessed German nationality and not possessing any other nationality who are proved not to enjoy, in law or in fact, the protection of the German Government.', but the Jews were well and truly protected by Germany's governing powers (the Allied Forces) in 1946.

I suggest replacing the term 'Jewish refugees from Europe' with the term 'mostly uprooted European Jews' or 'mostly displaced European Jews' or most precisely, 'mostly former refugees or captives of the Nazi regime, of Jewish descent and European origin' in this case, or even just 'Holocaust survivors' as they're referred to at the beginning of the paragraph. MathewMunro (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word refugees is part of the formal language used in the 1946 committee report (pg 2). See quote below.

"REFUGEE IMMIGRATION INTO PALESTINE

Recommendation NO. 2

We recommend (A) that 100.000 certificates be authorised immediately the admission into Palestine of Jews Who have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist Persecution".

Same term was used by Truman: "I have, nevertheless, maintained my deep interest in the matter and have repeatedly made known and have urged that steps be taken at the earliest possible moment to admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine." Dd659 (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, accepted. You can delete this section if you like, or leave it up, as the extra info might be of interest to some. MathewMunro (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Some may have been stateless or displaced persons, but the difference didn't amount to much in reality. AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Map Caption

The caption of the map that shows how UN members voted includes only four categories: for, against, abstained and absent. However, there is a fifth color in the map for the Philippines, Liberia and Haiti. This fifth color indicated that the members intended to vote against the resolution, but switched their vote to "in favor" after pressure from the United States, as explained in the article. I suggest to add the fifth color and an explanation of the color to the caption. Mschiffler (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Palestinian Arabs" vs. "Palestinians"

Why does this article use the phrase "Palestinian Arabs" rather "Palestinians?" I fail to see a compelling argument, given the term was explicitly in use by the time of the Partition Plan in the Palestinian press by papers like Filastin and al-Munadi (as explicated by Rashid Khalidi in Palestinian Identity). Given the common erasure by the Israeli state of Palestinian identity through reduction to "Arabs," this choice strikes me as particularly egregious. After all, we refer Iraqis as Iraqis and Syrians and Syrians, not as "Iraqi Arabs" or "Syrian Arabs," nor do we refer to Germans as "German Europeans" or the French as "French Europeans." Naomiomiomi (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I could live with either provided the meaning is clear. However, in 1948 the phrase "Palestinian Jews" was also quite common so part of your argument is not correct. Zero^talk 02:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The word "Palestinians" in English did not begin to strongly imply Arab until the 1950s, and many English-speakers with only a casual interest in the Middle East would not have become familiar with this usage until the 1960s. Until 1950, the Jerusalem Post was known as the "Palestine Post". And since this article is about the United Nations Partition Plan, the plan itself refers to the two communities as "Jews" and "Arabs" (as was common throughout the Mandate period). AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect population for the Jewish Partition.

It should be noted that the UNSCOP's population table for each partition is wrong. In the first place, it does not include the Bedouin population of the Negev, except as a footnote. Including this number in the actual table gives: Jewish Partition Arab population: 497,000, Jewish population: 498,000.

However the Bedouins were, by this time known to be undercounted. As the Subcommittee 2, stated: "That estimate of the Bedouin population is, however, inaccurate and it will be seen from the note submitted to the Sub-Committee by the representative of the United Kingdom on 1 November 1947 (see appendix III to this report) that, on the basis of the latest investigation carried out in the Beersheba sub-district by the Palestine administration, the Bedouin population of Palestine is now estimated at approximately 127,000." http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Chapter3.htm#Chap3Sec04

So the real population of the Jewish Partition consisted of "of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews"[ibid].

These numbers should be updated in this topic, however, I doubt that they will be given the bias in Wikipedia on Palestine. Mcdruid (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is already explained in the article. It led to a revision of the boundaries. If you know of published population figures for the revised partition, please tell us. Zero^talk 08:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not read down that far. Mcdruid (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"despite"

@Wafflefrites: Please restore the former version here [10], given the sentence is stating the position of its detractors, not in WP voice, and this "despite" thing is directly supported by the in-line scholarly citation quote by Ben-Dror: "More than half of the area of Palestine (62 percent) was allocated to be a Jewish state and the Arab state was supposed to make do with the remaining area, although the Palestinian Arab population numbered as much as twice the Jewish population in the land." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to try to follow WP guidelines strictly sometimes. Trying to follow MOS:EDITORIAL. But that Ben-Dror source seems questionable.

The source says, “More than half of the area of Palestine (62 percent) was allocated to be a Jewish state and the Arab state was supposed to make do with the remaining area, although the Palestinian Arab population numbered as much as twice the Jewish population in the land.”

The Ben-Dror source seems to have gotten the statistic wrong, and based on that statistic came to a conclusion. It should be 56% not 62%. Are there better or other sources that we can use for the sentence? Also if we are not using despite in wiki voice, should “despite” be in quotes. Trying to follow MOS:EDITORIAL which says despite is a word to watch. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

After the "Math" discussion, we ended up leaving both sources in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I just reread the source quote and the source doesn’t use “despite” either. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It says "although" which to me means the same thing, so I would be OK with that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The source uses although which is another word to watch.

A synonym for although is when:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/although

Despite is not listed as a synonym for although, so to avoid words to watch and use a synonym of although I picked when Wafflefrites (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The source uses although, so I am fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the word to although and used active voice. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

62% is the percentage given to the Jewish state in the UNSCOP recommendation. This is what Ben-Dror actually says and he is a fine source for that. However, because of the adjustments made by the UN ad-hoc committee (especially in the Auja region of the Negev, see the map), the UN vote was for 56%. So both numbers are correct but for different things. We just need a good source for the 56% and we can report both numbers with their proper interpretation. Incidentally, I checked these percentages by measuring the map. Zero^talk 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The source in this edit is OK, right? Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seems to be ok. Zero^talk 02:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Out-of-context quote / possibly misleading attribution (Benny Morris)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not "satisfactory", "severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries"

+

Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomat [[Douglas Busk]] "that he had nothing against Iraqi Jews who were a long established and useful community. He felt bound to tell [him], however, that the Arab League meeting might decide that if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.He would be unable to resist such a proposal."

The original quote can be found here:

Additionally, please fix the same quote in Jewish exodus from the Muslim world#1948 Arab–Israeli War

• Why it should be changed:

  1 - The quotation marks in Morris' book are referring to the original document where Douglas Busk paraphrases Nuri.
  2 - Out-of-context quotation flips Nuri's position. He is clearly against such measures in the full quote but seems to be saying that they should happen in the current version.
  3 - At that point in time, it was not already decided "if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries". But rather that they might decide.

You can verify the quote by searching through google books: google books search

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Bowad91017 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a good proposal and I have confirmed the text. I'll make the edit tomorrow if nobody does it first. Another copy of the telegram this "quotation" comes from, and lots of other cool stuff, is here. Zero^talk 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Zero^talk 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the cool stuff, not seen that before. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the archive.org link. Bowad91017 (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit Request: Recommended partition

The sentence The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert, which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. is not true:

„[…The area assigned to the zionists] also incorporated the vast area of the Negev, which was populated by 100,000 Bedouin who produced from the desert most of the barley and wheat grown in Palestine.
The land under cultivation in the Negev alone was three times that under cultivation by the Jewish settlers in the whole of the rest of Palestine. Despite the fact that there had been but 475 Jewish settlers in the Negev before President Truman made his declaration in favour of the Jewish state, the United Nations duly handed over this huge area to the Zionists, doubtless believing the myth that it was they, not the Arabs, who ‚made the desert bloom‘.“ (Jonathan Dimbleby: The Palestinians. Quartet Books, London et al. 1979. p. 86. Cf. also UN, Sub-Committee 2 on the Palestinian Question: Report of Sub-Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question of the UN General Assembly 1947; Elias Chacour: Blood Brothers. Chosen Books, Grand Rapids 2003, ISBN 978-0-8007-9321-0. p. 46; Walid Khalidi: Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution. In: Journal of Palestine Studies 27/1, 1997. p. 5–21, here 13.) DaWalda (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We can improve the wording even if Dimbleby, not being an expert, is not a great source for this. All that cereal cultivation took part in the northernmost part of Negev (per your source The bulk of them live in the northern and north-western parts of the Beersheba sub-district, where they are responsible for the cultivation of the greater part of the 2 million dunums of cereal land). 2 million dunam is about 2,000 km2, whereas the total area of Negev is 13,000 km2. So both of these statements are true:

• Negev accounted for a substantial part of cereal cultivation
• Most of Negev allotted to the Jewish state was not suitable for agriculture.

We already mention the distribution of the Bedouins in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. The best primary source would probably be the report from Subcommittee 2 (Appendix III.4; VI Part 4).

I think something definitely should be changed: The section is about how economically constituted areas were distributed (Sharon, Jezreel, Jordan: fertile vs. Negev: not suitable for agriculture). But this contrast does not really exist; instead, the northern Negev is allocated to the Jewish state as a fourth important area for agriculture. Perhaps instead: The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley, and the upper Jordan Valley. Additionally, it included the northern Negev, where Bedouins produced just under a third of Palestinian grain. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the southern Negev Desert, which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. --DaWalda (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all of northern Negev was given to the Jewish state, as you can see on the map of the partition. Beersheva and the land to the north-east was to become a part of the Arab state. Compare it to the land use map, I suppose that all that grain was grown in the "medium-quality" "semi-desert lowland."

We already mention that the Jewish state would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain. We could replace Eastern Galilee with Jezreel and Jordan valley to be more precise. The only other thing we should fix is the sentence about Negev: The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert, which was mostly not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. Again, it's notable that the arid part of Negev constituted the majority of the territory allotted to the Jewish state. Alaexis_¿question? 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems unsufficient to me. The 2 million dunams are not referring to the Negev, but to the Beersheba Subdistrict. Originally, this entire area - including the entire 2 million dunams - was supposed to go to the Jewish state before the Americans negotiated that the corner up to Beersheba (see your first map) would be part of the Arab state. This did not mean significant losses of agricultural land for the Jewish state because the areas where Bedouins lived most densely and practiced agriculture most intensively can be seen on this map, if you zoom in a bit: west and northwest of Beersheba (so, you are right, it's the semi-desert lowland). Unsurprisingly, this is also where Israelis later built their settlements after having displaced the Bedouins, as seen on this map. In this region, "regular" agriculture was practiced.

Runoff agriculture area. Source: Cohen 1979, fig. 1

However, the second type of agriculture in the Negev was runoff farming using rainwater runnig through the wadis in the Negev Highlands. Here, the Bedouins continued to use the old terrace systems of the ancient highland inhabitants. It was mostly practiced by nomadic Bedouins, so you can't see it on the Bedouin settlement map. But Bruins in his dissertation reviewed a number of these systems, most of which were continued to be used by the Bedouins. You can see where these predominantly were located on the map to the right (forgive the quality, I quickly put it together for this discussion). Even here, according to the UNSCOP plan everything was supposed to go to the Jewish state. According to the American plan only part of this area was supposed to go to the Jewish state (so, this was indeed a compromise solution in favor of the Palestinians).

One often reads the misconception that the Negev was virtually empty and not suited for agriculture. On the contrary, large areas were well suited, just not for modern western agriculture. Kedar and others have recently written a book on this myth, which they call the "Dead Negev Doctrine". It's currently being heavily promoted again because a new movement is emerging that wants to help the Bedouins assert their right to their land, which Israel has mostly declared first as terra nullius and then as state land. Imho, such myths should not be reproduced on Wikipedia. --DaWalda (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

DaWalda, you have been given some leeway to respond here, but as a non EC editor you are strictly not permitted to participate in consensus forming discussions per WP:ARBECR, so it would be appreciated if you would now let this matter be decided by EC editors, there is no need for any further input on your part. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

First, no one disputes that Negev is suitable for some agriculture, different parts of it to a different degree. The Nabataens, Bedouins and modern kibbutzes have used various techniques to grow stuff there. However it's also a fact that it's less productive than most of the other parts of Israel/Palestine. We shouldn't engage in original research but rather follow secondary sources describing the partition.

Also, if it was perceived unsuitable for agriculture at the time, this can also be relevant, because the decision was taken then. I'll try to review sources and come up with appropriate wording. Until you're WP:XC, feel free to respond at my talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 09:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr Heykal Pasha's quote

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

"Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world... to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews."

+

If Arab blood is shed in Palestine, Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world despite all the sincere efforts of the Governments concerned to prevent such reprisals. to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews simply in order to save a hundred thousand in Europe or to satisfy the Zionist dream?

• Why it should be changed:

- I think quoting "If A, then B" as "...B" is misleading.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The current reference already has the correct quote. it's in take #2 (so page 3 of the pdf) Bowad91017 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The genre of history-by-quotation is much beloved of propagandists and I would prefer that section to disappear. However, since removing it would get too much resistance, we should try to get it accurate. In this case you are correct again that the text is misleading. There are also sourcing problems in that paragraph. Morris cites Heykal with no context from an undated Jewish Agency memorandum; that might be good enough for Morris but it's not good enough for us. The UN source is a preliminary press release that has the meeting number wrong. The 29th meeting was on Nov 22, and neither Heykal nor Fawzi spoke then. Both Heykal's and Fawzi's statements were in the 30th meeting. The official summary is A/AC.14/SR.30. I'm going to replace the paragraph from that source. Zero^talk 04:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done though somewhat differently. Zero^talk 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

To editor Bowad91017: Can you find an original source for "Jamal Husseini promised, 'The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East'"? Morris gives no source and no date or anything pointing at a source. I looked at lots of other places and none had a source or date either. I plan to remove it. Zero^talk 05:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was the quote "Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world" removed? It's right here on page 3. Alaexis_¿question? 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(a) Because I believe the official record is more reliable than a press release. (b) Because it now reports what happened in a less emotive way. (c) Because the previous text used ellipses to misrepresent both the source and the facts. Heykal did not threaten the Jews of Arab nations. At this time the Arab states (and the Palestinians) were putting forward every argument they could think of to prevent the passing of the partition resolution. This particular argument was that the resolution would provoke violent popular reactions in the Arab world that would endanger the Jews living there and the Arab states would not be able to control the situation "despite all the sincere efforts of the Governments concerned to prevent such reprisals". There is dramatic exaggeration in his words, but quoting them without the caveat or the context was outrageous. Zero^talk 10:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the ellipses and have no problem with quoting him verbatim. Whether it a threat or not is a more complex question. It depends a lot on the context, so we need to follow secondary sources here.

I don't agree that a press release is not reliable for our purposes. What are the reasons for doubting the authenticity of UN press releases? Alaexis_¿question? 06:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am opposed to adding material that I know to be false or give a false picture. Of course it was in the Zionists' interest to present the Arab statements in the worst possible light and of course their claims are presented as fact by enthusiastically Zionist writers like Gilbert (wrong page number). This is confirmed by the fact that Gilbert's only source is a NYT article which only uses "threat" in the voice of Shertok and uses "warning" otherwise. Disagreement with primary sources is an argument against the reliability of the secondary source, not an excuse to ignore the primary sources. Anyway, Gilbert uses "warned", "cautioned" and only once "threatening". Lawrence J. Epstein is not qualified at all. The third source (also not cited correctly) was written by the "Adviser on the law of Arab countries at the Israel Ministry of Justice" and frequent Israeli government delegate, and so is unreliable a fortiori. It quotes Heykal from the same UN document that I cited and the rest is spin. This article would look entirely different if we presented the Arab spin on Jewish statements in place of what the Jews themselves said, but nobody is trying to do that. I don't see why we should allow the opposite. Zero^talk 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the wrong page number, I've fixed it. I've also replaced the book by Epstein since he's indeed not an expert. I don't agree that Forgotten million is an unreliable source. A biased source is not necessarily unreliable.

I have no problem with "present[ing] the Arab spin on Jewish statements" assuming it's properly sourced and is given due weight.

Also, I don't think that you can *know* this to be false. You can't get into Heykal's head and check whether he was genuinely worried about the Jews in Arab countries. Neither can I, of course, and that's why we need to follow reliable secondary sources. I'm also fine with quoting him directly, it was you who objected to that. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be able to read Heykal's or Husseini's minds. But we are required to judge the reliability of sources and no source is immune from that examination. When a source reports someone as saying something different from what their own sources contain, that's a red flag. When the distortion matches their obvious bias, that's reason to attribute or omit them. Citing an Israeli government source for something like this in wikivoice is simply out of the question and I'm surprised that you suggest it. Next, why do you think a Swiss businessman who publishes books on the Holocaust in a religious publishing house is a reliable source? Incidentally, I found al-Husseini's testimony in the UN records and noticed this "That was not meant as a threat, but to draw attention to the reactions of a policy for which the United Nations would be responsible." So as well as both Heykal and Husseini repeatedly phrasing their prediction as what the Arab states could not prevent, not as what the Arab states threatened, al-Husseini explicitly answered the charge from the Israeli delegate that it was a threat. At the moment you only have Gilbert, who supports you with one word "threatening" while undermining you by quoting "nobody could prevent disorders" and "even though the Arab States may do their best to save their skins" (which comes just before the part I quoted). This isn't a matter of reading minds because nobody is proposing to report what they thought, but only what they said. Gilbert can't read minds either, so his opinion that Heykal meant something different from what he said is just his opinion and has to be attributed. What I can agree to is a sourced statement that some historians regard this as threat, but there is no case to state in wikivoice that it was a threat. Zero^talk 12:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm fine with quoting them directly and letting the reader judge. But then things like "Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world" shouldn't be removed.

Of course Al-Husseini would say it wasn't a threat, but it doesn't mean we should automatically believe him. Please bring RS that interpret his and Heykal's words differently and we'll update the wording. Alaexis_¿question? 14:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

At Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war, it has the following:

After the Partition vote, some Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine. For example, they spoke of "driving the Jews into the sea" or ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".

According to the Israeli traditional historiography, these statements reflected the Arab intentions. While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews, he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won. Gelber, on the other hand, regards these public statements as 'meaningless' and judges that the 'actions [of their armies] imply that the aims of the Arab invasion were decidedly limited and focused mainly on saving Arab Palestine from total Jewish domination'. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to concentrate more on the aims rather than what political statements were made by this or that person. Notice it doesn't mention threats towards Jews in Arab countries. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit request: Ad hoc Committee, last section

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition. [FN 1]

+

The chairman [[H. V. Evatt]] excluded the Arab states from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition. Initially, only this majority proposal was to be drafted, but an unnamed US politician maneuvered to also draft the minority proposal, thereby excluding the Arab states from the majority proposal's drafting. Instead, all Arab states were placed in Subcommittee 2 to draft the minority recommendation. [FN 2] Evatt also rejected a motion from Subcommittee 2 to balance this subcommittees' composition. [FN 3] He was later criticized for thereby preventing a compromise and a fairer partition proposal by creating these "unbalanced" subcommittees. [FN 4-6]

• Why it should be changed:
  This was in fact one of the major irregularities in the drafting of the partition resolution. The matter is referenced in the UN Yearbook 1947/1948. Cohen reports on it, cited by Thomas, who is cited by the Wikitext. Each source presents it slightly differently from the previous one, so the Wikitext is not accurate in the end. I mark the crucial point with a "[!]".
  • UN, Department of Public Information: Yearbook of the United Nations. 1947–48. p. 240: "On a preliminary review of the task assigned to it - the drafting of a detailed plan for the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the establishment of Palestine as an independent unitary state - the Sub-Committee felt that it was somewhat unfortunate that both Sub-Committee 1 and Sub-Committee 2 were so constituted as to include in each of them representatives of only one school of thought, respectively, and that there was insufficient representation of neutral countries. Accordingly, it was proposed that the Chairman of the ad hoc Committee should be requested to reconstitute Sub-Committee 2 (irrespective of what might be done with regard to Sub-Committee 1) [!] by replacing two of the Arab States in the Sub-Committee (which were prepared to withdraw) by neutrals or countries which had not definitely committed themselves to any particular solution of the Palestine question. The Chairman of the ad hoc Committee, being approached in this connection, explained to the Sub-Committee that he could not see his way to accepting this recommendation. [!] In the circumstances, the representative of Colombia resigned from the Sub-Committee on October 28, and Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) was elected as Chairman in his stead, at the same time retaining his position as Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee."
  • Michael J. Cohen (2016): Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948. Princeton Legacy Library. p. 284: "On October 22, 1947, the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, chaired by Dr. Herbert E. Evatt of Australia, set up [!] two subcommittees, to study the majority and minority reports and to bring forward detailed proposals to the full assembly. Subcommittee One, with nine members, all supporters of partition, was deputed to work on the majority report; Subcommittee Two, composed of six Arab delegates and three supporters of the minority plan, was to work out the details of the unitary state scheme. [...] Subcommittee Two was not really taken seriously, and the unitary state scheme was never considered at any length by the assembly. Evatt found his freedom of choice severely limited by the right of delegates to opt out of subcommittees [!], but nevertheless he was criticized severely for composing them exclusively of delegates who already supported the schemes they were called upon to consider. The mutual exclusivity of the two reports was underlined by the fact that the Jewish Agency exploited to the full the opportunity afforded it to give evidence to Subcommittee One, while the HAC, which boycotted the first committee, was continually consulted by Subcommittee Two."
  • Thomas (see text): "The Arabs had boycotted the June 1947 UNSCOP inquiry [this is completely wrong; it was only the Arab Higher Committee (sc. Palestine's 'government') that boycotted UNSCOP] but wished to participate in the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine's subcommittees of October 1947. They were excluded from Subcommittee One, responsible for studying and modifying the boundaries and other specifics of partition. The UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine placed only pro-partition, pro-Jewish countries (including the United States and U.S.S.R.) on this subcommittee. The chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, though limited in his freedom of choice concerning the assignment of delegates to various committees [!], 'was criticized severely for composing them exclusively of delegates who already supported the schemes that were called upon to consider.' The Arabs were included only in Subcommittee Two, dealing with the minority report (unitary Arab plan), which was not taken seriously. Cohen, Palestine, 284."

DaWalda (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), First Section

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

The Arab states, convinced statehood had been subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be brought before an International Court, and refused to collaborate with UNSCOP, which had extended an invitation for liaison also to the [[Arab Higher Committee]]. [FN 1: Thomas] [FN 2]

+

The Arab states, convinced statehood had been subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be brought before an International Court. The [[Arab Higher Committee]] even officially refused to cooperate with UNSCOP. [FN 2] [FN 3]

• Why it should be changed: The information in Thomas is wrong. I have actually found even more books where a boycott by 'the Arabs' is mentioned. However, the matter is thoroughly discussed by Levenberg: It was only some members of the Arab Higher Committee who wanted to boycott UNSCOP. The other Arab states were against it, did of course work together with UNSCOP, and even within the AHC, several individuals (e.g., Khalidi [cf., e.g., Morris: 1948. p. 45] and Alami [cf., e.g., Levenberg: Politics... p. 157]) unofficially collaborated with UNSCOP.
  
  

DaWalda (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)