![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The article is in process of being merged with Mandate Palestine, i apologize for some inconvenience and instability of the page in this regard. The last version of Mandate Palestine is available in this link. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This link may be provide a more practical way of viewing the old Mandate Palestine article. ← ZScarpia 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC) This link provides access to the old Mandate Palesine article's talkpage. ← ZScarpia 15:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Merger complete. Greyshark09 ( talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Once the move below is completed, please could an admin kindly help fix the history of these articles under WP:HISTMERGE? If I understand it correctly, two things need to happen to correct everything here:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved for lack of consensus. The majority certainly seems to feel that "British Mandate of Palestine" or "British Mandate for Palestine" are to be preferred, but very good arguments against this have also been put forth. Since it doesn't seem that there will be consensus on an alternate name, the article title will stay as British Mandate for Palestine, where it has been located since 2010. Should further discussion here condense the options to a reasonable number, another requested move could be opened. It has generally been my experience that the more options that are offered as alternative titles, the less likely it is that consensus is reached. Aervanath ( talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine →
Palestine (British Mandate protectorate) – relisted--
Mike Cline (
talk) 11:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at length above, and following the creation of the demerged article
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), a rename of this page is required since following the demerger the current title no longer represents the content of the article. We previously had two articles named "
Mandate Palestine (version 24 Dec 2011)" and "
British Mandate for Palestine (version 24 Dec 2011)", a situation which caused much confusion and their content became essentially the same. These articles have now been merged and demerged, and the clarifier "(legal instrument)" has been added in to the title of the new demerged article.
I believe there should be three objectives with respect to the choice of title:
Please VOTE for one of the following choices below, which i believe are the most commonly suggested options (in alphabetical order):
My vote is for Option (F), since it is very clear that it refers to the political entity not the legal instrument and it is the correct commonname for the entity as can be seen from stamps, passports and legal documents from the period.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment The issue with the current name has been discussed at some length above. "British Mandate for Palestine" was a legal instrument passed at the league of nations that formalized two separate political entities -Palestine (west of the Jordan) and Transjordan (east of the Jordan) that had already been established prior to the act. An article named "British Mandate for Palestine" purporting to be about a single "geopolitical polity" that included both Palestine and Transjordan is highly misleading, as such a polity never existed. Leaving aside the lead and the title, the content of this article is clearly about Palestine (west of the Jordan) during the mandate era (1920-48), and the title should make this crystal clear to avoid misleading readers and confusing editors. My issue with (A) British Mandate of Palestine, is that I am not 100% clear if the scope of an article of this name is to include both political entities formalized under the terms of the British mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), or whether it is to cover only one of the two entities - Palestine (i.e. the territory west of the Jordan). Dlv999 ( talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion: for the top 20 hits (19 non-wiki), 13 are clearly for the legal instrument, 1 is clearly for the territory and 5 are unclear. So thats:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Since Greyshark opposed my proposal to focus the debate, I have another proposal to try to move this forward.
We need to identify an option that works for everyone. That means taking into account positive and negative views on each of the names. Given the diversity of views here, I suggest that the outcome may need to be the one which "no one is happy with, but everyone is ok with" - i.e. a true compromise.
Could I suggest therefore that all editors resubmit their votes, but this time providing a view on ALL the options. My votes are below:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As per the above discussion and the "citation needed" tags added to the lead, please could editors who believe the current title (and/or A above) is an appropriate title for this article please provide sources supporting this? Oncenawhile ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved to Mandatory Palestine. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine →
Mandate Palestine – Relisted.
Mandate Palestine or
Mandatory Palestine?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Propose to move back to what appears to be the most neutrally-viewed name for this article (about the geopolitical entity). Since the merger and then demerger of the now separate article
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), we have been going round in circles. It's time to take the path of least resistance. A quick message to any editors who believe that this article should keep the current name - please review the history of the merge and demerge, then look at the content of this article. If you still believe this article's current name is appropriate, please provide
WP:RS to support usage of the term "British Mandate for Palestine" to define the political entity (as opposed to the legal instrument). Thanks.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The article as of 30 April 2012 does not accurately describe the wording of the Israel Declaration of Independence. [1]
I have therefor propose to rewrite the section dealing with the Declaration of Independence. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy
The operative words are in capitals because that is how they appear in the two websites that I have found on the Declaration of Independence of Israel [2] and [3]
The other matters are covered above. As a compromise I shal remove the capitals. Trahelliven ( talk) 04:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I shal wait the statutory time before I edit it again.
1 My objection to the article before I edited it was that it purported to summarise the operative part of the declaration. The operative part is so short; it is better to quote it in full rather than attempt to summarise it
2 In Eretz Israel. If it is not meant to establish borders, let the words speak for themselves. If the intention was for Ben-Gurion etc to comply with the Plan of Partition, they presumably would have defined the borders in terms of the area set aside for the Jewish state. That they did not do so implies that they wanted less or even possibly even more. The use of the term Eretz Israel suggests that they wanted more.
3 I do not understand where the idea that the declaration was to be effective the next day, i.e. on 15 May. The reference in the later paragraph of the Declaration to the moment of the termination of the Mandate is to lay down when the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State,...
4 I fail to see how Israel could have declared itself an independent nation when it had not come into existnce. My reading of the Declaration is that We in the main operative part of the document refers to Ben-Gurion and the other signatories.
5 What document shows:- On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy and others.
I am sorry that I did not realise that there is no ambiguity there, but unfortunately, I speak not a word of Hebrew.
Presumably Bier, Aharon, & Slae, Bracha,For the sake of Jerusalem, Mazo Publishers, 2006, p.49 is authority for the proposition that the declaration was to become effective from the end of the Mandate at midnight of Friday 14 May. If not, a reference should be included.
Even if in Eretz Israel does not define the borders of the new state, it is a key phrase in the Declaration and should be included in the article.
The Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence, without mentioning its borders.--- Declared independence of what? Whose borders? To what noun does the pronoun its refer?
On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel.--- On 14 May there was no Jewish provisional government. If this is merely a restatement of Ben-Gurion's reading of the Declaration, it is superfluous and should be deleted.
The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation.--If this is a reference to the Declaration by Ben-Guion, it is factually incorrect. If it is something else, an appropriate reference should be included.
As I have said earlier the simplest and correct wording is:- declared the existence of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy and others
Perhaps a compromise for the paragraph might go as follows:-
I have compromised on the following points
I have not directed my mind the section that deals with the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Trahelliven ( talk) 23:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The words, declared independence, without mentioning its borders, still present problens.
Zero0000
Thanks! I still, however, do not understand what is wrong with established. Is it a mistranslation of the original Hebrew text? I have put a wililink in Eratz Israel. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
All
No-one has attempted to explain what is wrong with the use of the word establishment rather than independence when the English translation of the Declaration uses the former word. There is a subtle distinction; independence suggests that the entty was already in existence, while establishment suggests that it was not. I apologise for being a somewhat pedantic lawyer. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Zero0000
I am still not really happy with the inclusion of the word 'independent'. If the declaration of 14 May 1948 had complied with the recommendation in Resolution 181(II) of the UNGA and defined the boundaries of the Jewish state to those set out in Res. 181, you would be able to use the word. Res.181 uses the following phrase, Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.
However, by using the phrase 'in Eretz Israel', the Declaration purported to create a state and government potentially including parts of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. (See the article on Eretz Israel.) Presumably this was not intended. I find the concept of an independent state without defined boundaries difficult to understand. It is simpler and cleaner to omit the word. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Noon
The words of the document signed by Harry Truman indicate that did not recognise Israel, but the the provision government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel; there is a big distinction. De jure recognition came later. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, in the same paragraph as the one that is discussed here above, I suggest to replace 'around (...) 1876 Syrians' by 'around (...) 2000 Syrians. 1876 is not an approximation and the variations of these numbers in sources have always been huge (and amazing). I am quite sure most sources talk about 10,000 Egyptians (50% moving along the coast ; 50% moving to Jerusalem via Hebron). I don't understand the interest of talking separately about the entering of the 4,500 Jordaninans in the 'corpus separatum' in reaction to Kilshion operation here. That is too complex a problem to be introduced here and nobody but experts understand why it is talked about. I add that according to Morrs and Gelber, no Lebanese troops intervened (but only as part of the ALA). There were also volunteers from Sudan and Soudia Arabia that came with Egyptians troops... All in all, I would suggest to replace these last sentences by : 'the following days, expeditionnary corpses from Jordan, Irak, Egypt and Syria with new voluntarees coming from the Arab world entered Palestine and fought the Israelis'. If a number is required, I think that 'totalising around 20,000 fighters' is the average from what can be found in the reliable sources. 81.247.81.57 ( talk) 11:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The area should include also Transjordan, which was under direct British Mandate until 1928. Granting fully autonomous status to the Emirate of Transjordan in 1928 should also be mentioned as a key event in the history of the Mandatory Palestine. Since i still banish myself from directly editing this article - other editors are welcome to do that or explain why not? Cheers. Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete the following gratuitous detail (shown in strikeout below) which is not directly related to the topic of this article. This is appropriately covered on the Mufti article and does not require duplication here.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Both Zionist activities in Europe related to Mandatory Palestine as well as Palestinian Arab nationalist activities there need to be covered here. Husseini's role as Palestinian leader, even though not representing all Palestinian Arabs, needs a proper review, as his actions in alliance with the axis were directly oriented on promoting axis conquest of the Levant. Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't Jordan a part of the Mandatory Palestine? And, if so, shouldn't it be included in the map and mentioned in the text? Faunas ( talk) 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@Dalai, i think we got some kind of misunderstanding on the way, as apparently i was edit conflicted with your revert, before i could put the reference. At the bottom line, the official name on English documents was "Palestine" (Filastin in Arabic) or "Palestine - EY" (also Palestina - Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew). Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The British authorities decided to use the traditional Arabic and Hebrew equivalents to the English name, i.e. filasţīn (فلسطين) and palestína (פּלשׂתינה) respectively. The Jewish leadership proposed that the proper Hebrew name should be Eretz Yisra′el (ארץ ישׂראל=Land of Israel). The final compromise was to add the initials of the Hebrew proposed name, Alef-Yud, within parenthesis (א″י), whenever the Mandate's name was mentioned in Hebrew in official documents. The Arab leadership saw this compromise as a violation of the mandate terms. Some Arab politicians demanded that the Arabs be allowed to choose the Mandate's name in Arabic, and suggested the name "Southern Syria" (سوريا الجنوبية). The British authorities rejected this proposal. http://www.enotes.com/topic/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
I will accept a note to this effect in body, but i will revert the present incorrect claim regarding adding a Jewish proposal which did not change the official name. Hope this helps you. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The treatment of this matter is very unsatisfactory at the moment. The only source given is a primary source that records an interchange between two people who don't seem to agree on it. It also gives no support at all to the claim that something changed in 1926. Actually the practice of adding "aleph-yod" in Hebrew began in 1922 at the latest. As far as I can tell, there are two descriptions around: (1) the official name in Hebrew was "Palestina (aleph yod)", (2) the official name in Hebrew was "Palestina", to which "(aleph yod)" was appended by agreement. The difference between thesKe two descriptions was negligible for almost all purposes, so you can't expect sources to carefully distinguish between them. Abu el-Haj, "Facts on the Ground", has a few pages on it, but they are a bit confusing. It looks like she is citing the Peel Commission Report (1937), but actually she seems to be citing some 1920 document that was included in the Memoranda provided to the Peel Commission. I'm still looking for the perfect source. Zero talk 02:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This paper describes how it got started in 1920. Zero talk 03:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
None of this changes the official name of MP. official is not official. This is not a technicality or semantics, or anything to do with what those who 'know about the period' want to believe. We can't change something just because you do not like it. The present text is perfectly adequate to explain the situation. I have added in the two Hebrew and Arabic versions of the name in English, as you requested. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The accurate description is Israel and the Palestinian Territories (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza). The current formulation is wrong. The Palestinian Authority is not a geographical entity, so it is nonsensical to say the Palestinian Authority was once part of Mandatory Palestine. Further, the Area under the control of the PA is only a minority of the West Bank, the current formulation does not take into account Area C which is not part of Israel, or under the control of the PA. Dlv999 ( talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"Geopolitical entity" (see the "about" at the top of the article, the article's first sentence and perhaps elsewhere)... is that a euphemism? 213.246.91.158 ( talk) 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to British Palestine. MikeLynch ( talk) 06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Mandatory Palestine →
British Palestine –
Since the British controlled Palestine at this period, it would seem to be much better to call the article British Palestine.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zero0000 reverted my edit, in which I added the map of the Palestinian mandate in the period of 1920-1923, claiming that it's "simply not true." I'd like to know what is the simple truth here and why is the map still left and used in too many Wikipedia versions, if it were "simply not true". Also, if that is correct, then why didn't Zero0000 ask Ramallite or people at Wikimedia Commons to remove it? -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 14:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across a couple of inconsistencies in the following paragraph and am calling upon the history buffs to rework it:
1) The second sentence is very poorly written, the whole paragraph unsourced, not linked to Palestine Regiment (or Jewish Brigade, see below), and the numbers of volunteers doesn't match either article (3800 for the regiment, 5000 for the brigade).
2) The linked article on Brigadier Ernest Benjamin mentions him becomming Commanding Officer of the Jewish Brigade (not Regiment) - the Brigade, according to its article, being formed in 1944 from the Palestine Regiment plus auxiliaries (the regiment, in turn, already being formed in 1942 from various Palestine Infantry Companies, according to its article). Something is wrong here.
3) I seriously doubt that, of all the infantrymen in the Jewish Brigade, only two platoons would be sent to Italy, especially not under command of a Brigadier. Perhaps they were battalions, not platoons? I have no idea.
4) The Jewish Regiment (or Brigade or whatever) was really segregated into Jewish and Arab sub-units? I find that hard to believe. (Actually, the article on the Brigade doesn't mention Arab participation at all, while the (much shorter) article on the Regiment does...)
As I said, that's not my field of knowledge, and I don't even begin to have the proper sources available to correct this paragraph. Just pointing a finger so those who know better are made aware of the issues. -- DevSolar ( talk) 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In the lead, it is written : ""British Israel" redirects here. For the belief that the British people are direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, see British Israelism."
I think this is so fringe a theory that this should not be mentionned in the article, even as a disambiguation. It sounds to my ears as talking of creation in the article about evoluation and in fact, it is even more unrelevant because this "controversy" is nearly unknown even in the media.
What's your mind ? Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I just found a page on the Israeli forcing of non-Jewish Palestinians to flee, which I'll add a link to. It's an important part of the climax of Mandate Palestine and the birth of Israel. And without such information in the article it misses out an important part of the Palestinian experience of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.150.17 ( talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The article is in process of being merged with Mandate Palestine, i apologize for some inconvenience and instability of the page in this regard. The last version of Mandate Palestine is available in this link. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This link may be provide a more practical way of viewing the old Mandate Palestine article. ← ZScarpia 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC) This link provides access to the old Mandate Palesine article's talkpage. ← ZScarpia 15:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Merger complete. Greyshark09 ( talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Once the move below is completed, please could an admin kindly help fix the history of these articles under WP:HISTMERGE? If I understand it correctly, two things need to happen to correct everything here:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved for lack of consensus. The majority certainly seems to feel that "British Mandate of Palestine" or "British Mandate for Palestine" are to be preferred, but very good arguments against this have also been put forth. Since it doesn't seem that there will be consensus on an alternate name, the article title will stay as British Mandate for Palestine, where it has been located since 2010. Should further discussion here condense the options to a reasonable number, another requested move could be opened. It has generally been my experience that the more options that are offered as alternative titles, the less likely it is that consensus is reached. Aervanath ( talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine →
Palestine (British Mandate protectorate) – relisted--
Mike Cline (
talk) 11:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at length above, and following the creation of the demerged article
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), a rename of this page is required since following the demerger the current title no longer represents the content of the article. We previously had two articles named "
Mandate Palestine (version 24 Dec 2011)" and "
British Mandate for Palestine (version 24 Dec 2011)", a situation which caused much confusion and their content became essentially the same. These articles have now been merged and demerged, and the clarifier "(legal instrument)" has been added in to the title of the new demerged article.
I believe there should be three objectives with respect to the choice of title:
Please VOTE for one of the following choices below, which i believe are the most commonly suggested options (in alphabetical order):
My vote is for Option (F), since it is very clear that it refers to the political entity not the legal instrument and it is the correct commonname for the entity as can be seen from stamps, passports and legal documents from the period.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment The issue with the current name has been discussed at some length above. "British Mandate for Palestine" was a legal instrument passed at the league of nations that formalized two separate political entities -Palestine (west of the Jordan) and Transjordan (east of the Jordan) that had already been established prior to the act. An article named "British Mandate for Palestine" purporting to be about a single "geopolitical polity" that included both Palestine and Transjordan is highly misleading, as such a polity never existed. Leaving aside the lead and the title, the content of this article is clearly about Palestine (west of the Jordan) during the mandate era (1920-48), and the title should make this crystal clear to avoid misleading readers and confusing editors. My issue with (A) British Mandate of Palestine, is that I am not 100% clear if the scope of an article of this name is to include both political entities formalized under the terms of the British mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), or whether it is to cover only one of the two entities - Palestine (i.e. the territory west of the Jordan). Dlv999 ( talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion: for the top 20 hits (19 non-wiki), 13 are clearly for the legal instrument, 1 is clearly for the territory and 5 are unclear. So thats:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Since Greyshark opposed my proposal to focus the debate, I have another proposal to try to move this forward.
We need to identify an option that works for everyone. That means taking into account positive and negative views on each of the names. Given the diversity of views here, I suggest that the outcome may need to be the one which "no one is happy with, but everyone is ok with" - i.e. a true compromise.
Could I suggest therefore that all editors resubmit their votes, but this time providing a view on ALL the options. My votes are below:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As per the above discussion and the "citation needed" tags added to the lead, please could editors who believe the current title (and/or A above) is an appropriate title for this article please provide sources supporting this? Oncenawhile ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved to Mandatory Palestine. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine →
Mandate Palestine – Relisted.
Mandate Palestine or
Mandatory Palestine?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Propose to move back to what appears to be the most neutrally-viewed name for this article (about the geopolitical entity). Since the merger and then demerger of the now separate article
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), we have been going round in circles. It's time to take the path of least resistance. A quick message to any editors who believe that this article should keep the current name - please review the history of the merge and demerge, then look at the content of this article. If you still believe this article's current name is appropriate, please provide
WP:RS to support usage of the term "British Mandate for Palestine" to define the political entity (as opposed to the legal instrument). Thanks.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The article as of 30 April 2012 does not accurately describe the wording of the Israel Declaration of Independence. [1]
I have therefor propose to rewrite the section dealing with the Declaration of Independence. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy
The operative words are in capitals because that is how they appear in the two websites that I have found on the Declaration of Independence of Israel [2] and [3]
The other matters are covered above. As a compromise I shal remove the capitals. Trahelliven ( talk) 04:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I shal wait the statutory time before I edit it again.
1 My objection to the article before I edited it was that it purported to summarise the operative part of the declaration. The operative part is so short; it is better to quote it in full rather than attempt to summarise it
2 In Eretz Israel. If it is not meant to establish borders, let the words speak for themselves. If the intention was for Ben-Gurion etc to comply with the Plan of Partition, they presumably would have defined the borders in terms of the area set aside for the Jewish state. That they did not do so implies that they wanted less or even possibly even more. The use of the term Eretz Israel suggests that they wanted more.
3 I do not understand where the idea that the declaration was to be effective the next day, i.e. on 15 May. The reference in the later paragraph of the Declaration to the moment of the termination of the Mandate is to lay down when the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State,...
4 I fail to see how Israel could have declared itself an independent nation when it had not come into existnce. My reading of the Declaration is that We in the main operative part of the document refers to Ben-Gurion and the other signatories.
5 What document shows:- On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy and others.
I am sorry that I did not realise that there is no ambiguity there, but unfortunately, I speak not a word of Hebrew.
Presumably Bier, Aharon, & Slae, Bracha,For the sake of Jerusalem, Mazo Publishers, 2006, p.49 is authority for the proposition that the declaration was to become effective from the end of the Mandate at midnight of Friday 14 May. If not, a reference should be included.
Even if in Eretz Israel does not define the borders of the new state, it is a key phrase in the Declaration and should be included in the article.
The Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence, without mentioning its borders.--- Declared independence of what? Whose borders? To what noun does the pronoun its refer?
On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel.--- On 14 May there was no Jewish provisional government. If this is merely a restatement of Ben-Gurion's reading of the Declaration, it is superfluous and should be deleted.
The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation.--If this is a reference to the Declaration by Ben-Guion, it is factually incorrect. If it is something else, an appropriate reference should be included.
As I have said earlier the simplest and correct wording is:- declared the existence of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy and others
Perhaps a compromise for the paragraph might go as follows:-
I have compromised on the following points
I have not directed my mind the section that deals with the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Trahelliven ( talk) 23:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The words, declared independence, without mentioning its borders, still present problens.
Zero0000
Thanks! I still, however, do not understand what is wrong with established. Is it a mistranslation of the original Hebrew text? I have put a wililink in Eratz Israel. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
All
No-one has attempted to explain what is wrong with the use of the word establishment rather than independence when the English translation of the Declaration uses the former word. There is a subtle distinction; independence suggests that the entty was already in existence, while establishment suggests that it was not. I apologise for being a somewhat pedantic lawyer. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Zero0000
I am still not really happy with the inclusion of the word 'independent'. If the declaration of 14 May 1948 had complied with the recommendation in Resolution 181(II) of the UNGA and defined the boundaries of the Jewish state to those set out in Res. 181, you would be able to use the word. Res.181 uses the following phrase, Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.
However, by using the phrase 'in Eretz Israel', the Declaration purported to create a state and government potentially including parts of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. (See the article on Eretz Israel.) Presumably this was not intended. I find the concept of an independent state without defined boundaries difficult to understand. It is simpler and cleaner to omit the word. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Noon
The words of the document signed by Harry Truman indicate that did not recognise Israel, but the the provision government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel; there is a big distinction. De jure recognition came later. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, in the same paragraph as the one that is discussed here above, I suggest to replace 'around (...) 1876 Syrians' by 'around (...) 2000 Syrians. 1876 is not an approximation and the variations of these numbers in sources have always been huge (and amazing). I am quite sure most sources talk about 10,000 Egyptians (50% moving along the coast ; 50% moving to Jerusalem via Hebron). I don't understand the interest of talking separately about the entering of the 4,500 Jordaninans in the 'corpus separatum' in reaction to Kilshion operation here. That is too complex a problem to be introduced here and nobody but experts understand why it is talked about. I add that according to Morrs and Gelber, no Lebanese troops intervened (but only as part of the ALA). There were also volunteers from Sudan and Soudia Arabia that came with Egyptians troops... All in all, I would suggest to replace these last sentences by : 'the following days, expeditionnary corpses from Jordan, Irak, Egypt and Syria with new voluntarees coming from the Arab world entered Palestine and fought the Israelis'. If a number is required, I think that 'totalising around 20,000 fighters' is the average from what can be found in the reliable sources. 81.247.81.57 ( talk) 11:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The area should include also Transjordan, which was under direct British Mandate until 1928. Granting fully autonomous status to the Emirate of Transjordan in 1928 should also be mentioned as a key event in the history of the Mandatory Palestine. Since i still banish myself from directly editing this article - other editors are welcome to do that or explain why not? Cheers. Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete the following gratuitous detail (shown in strikeout below) which is not directly related to the topic of this article. This is appropriately covered on the Mufti article and does not require duplication here.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Both Zionist activities in Europe related to Mandatory Palestine as well as Palestinian Arab nationalist activities there need to be covered here. Husseini's role as Palestinian leader, even though not representing all Palestinian Arabs, needs a proper review, as his actions in alliance with the axis were directly oriented on promoting axis conquest of the Levant. Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't Jordan a part of the Mandatory Palestine? And, if so, shouldn't it be included in the map and mentioned in the text? Faunas ( talk) 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@Dalai, i think we got some kind of misunderstanding on the way, as apparently i was edit conflicted with your revert, before i could put the reference. At the bottom line, the official name on English documents was "Palestine" (Filastin in Arabic) or "Palestine - EY" (also Palestina - Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew). Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The British authorities decided to use the traditional Arabic and Hebrew equivalents to the English name, i.e. filasţīn (فلسطين) and palestína (פּלשׂתינה) respectively. The Jewish leadership proposed that the proper Hebrew name should be Eretz Yisra′el (ארץ ישׂראל=Land of Israel). The final compromise was to add the initials of the Hebrew proposed name, Alef-Yud, within parenthesis (א″י), whenever the Mandate's name was mentioned in Hebrew in official documents. The Arab leadership saw this compromise as a violation of the mandate terms. Some Arab politicians demanded that the Arabs be allowed to choose the Mandate's name in Arabic, and suggested the name "Southern Syria" (سوريا الجنوبية). The British authorities rejected this proposal. http://www.enotes.com/topic/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
I will accept a note to this effect in body, but i will revert the present incorrect claim regarding adding a Jewish proposal which did not change the official name. Hope this helps you. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The treatment of this matter is very unsatisfactory at the moment. The only source given is a primary source that records an interchange between two people who don't seem to agree on it. It also gives no support at all to the claim that something changed in 1926. Actually the practice of adding "aleph-yod" in Hebrew began in 1922 at the latest. As far as I can tell, there are two descriptions around: (1) the official name in Hebrew was "Palestina (aleph yod)", (2) the official name in Hebrew was "Palestina", to which "(aleph yod)" was appended by agreement. The difference between thesKe two descriptions was negligible for almost all purposes, so you can't expect sources to carefully distinguish between them. Abu el-Haj, "Facts on the Ground", has a few pages on it, but they are a bit confusing. It looks like she is citing the Peel Commission Report (1937), but actually she seems to be citing some 1920 document that was included in the Memoranda provided to the Peel Commission. I'm still looking for the perfect source. Zero talk 02:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This paper describes how it got started in 1920. Zero talk 03:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
None of this changes the official name of MP. official is not official. This is not a technicality or semantics, or anything to do with what those who 'know about the period' want to believe. We can't change something just because you do not like it. The present text is perfectly adequate to explain the situation. I have added in the two Hebrew and Arabic versions of the name in English, as you requested. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The accurate description is Israel and the Palestinian Territories (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza). The current formulation is wrong. The Palestinian Authority is not a geographical entity, so it is nonsensical to say the Palestinian Authority was once part of Mandatory Palestine. Further, the Area under the control of the PA is only a minority of the West Bank, the current formulation does not take into account Area C which is not part of Israel, or under the control of the PA. Dlv999 ( talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"Geopolitical entity" (see the "about" at the top of the article, the article's first sentence and perhaps elsewhere)... is that a euphemism? 213.246.91.158 ( talk) 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to British Palestine. MikeLynch ( talk) 06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Mandatory Palestine →
British Palestine –
Since the British controlled Palestine at this period, it would seem to be much better to call the article British Palestine.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zero0000 reverted my edit, in which I added the map of the Palestinian mandate in the period of 1920-1923, claiming that it's "simply not true." I'd like to know what is the simple truth here and why is the map still left and used in too many Wikipedia versions, if it were "simply not true". Also, if that is correct, then why didn't Zero0000 ask Ramallite or people at Wikimedia Commons to remove it? -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 14:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across a couple of inconsistencies in the following paragraph and am calling upon the history buffs to rework it:
1) The second sentence is very poorly written, the whole paragraph unsourced, not linked to Palestine Regiment (or Jewish Brigade, see below), and the numbers of volunteers doesn't match either article (3800 for the regiment, 5000 for the brigade).
2) The linked article on Brigadier Ernest Benjamin mentions him becomming Commanding Officer of the Jewish Brigade (not Regiment) - the Brigade, according to its article, being formed in 1944 from the Palestine Regiment plus auxiliaries (the regiment, in turn, already being formed in 1942 from various Palestine Infantry Companies, according to its article). Something is wrong here.
3) I seriously doubt that, of all the infantrymen in the Jewish Brigade, only two platoons would be sent to Italy, especially not under command of a Brigadier. Perhaps they were battalions, not platoons? I have no idea.
4) The Jewish Regiment (or Brigade or whatever) was really segregated into Jewish and Arab sub-units? I find that hard to believe. (Actually, the article on the Brigade doesn't mention Arab participation at all, while the (much shorter) article on the Regiment does...)
As I said, that's not my field of knowledge, and I don't even begin to have the proper sources available to correct this paragraph. Just pointing a finger so those who know better are made aware of the issues. -- DevSolar ( talk) 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In the lead, it is written : ""British Israel" redirects here. For the belief that the British people are direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, see British Israelism."
I think this is so fringe a theory that this should not be mentionned in the article, even as a disambiguation. It sounds to my ears as talking of creation in the article about evoluation and in fact, it is even more unrelevant because this "controversy" is nearly unknown even in the media.
What's your mind ? Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I just found a page on the Israeli forcing of non-Jewish Palestinians to flee, which I'll add a link to. It's an important part of the climax of Mandate Palestine and the birth of Israel. And without such information in the article it misses out an important part of the Palestinian experience of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.150.17 ( talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)