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 10 |
I made significant edits to the section on Jewish reaction. Drawn out semantic arguments do nobody any good, and anyway the previous section didn't adequately characterize the Jewish reaction. The Jewish reaction to the partition plan was, unambiguously, one of celebration. This is supported by hundreds upon hundreds of sources. Here is a summary of my other edits:
The old section had a comment by Ben Gurion made during UNSCOP deliberations to UNSCOP. If we want to keep this, it should go in the section on UNSCOP deliberations. In my opinion, once placed in context, it no longer meets the threshold for relevance.
This statement was paired with a Jewish Agency comment criticizing the partition on the issue of Jerusalem. I HAVE retained that, but have moved it earlier to maintain chronological order (after UNSCOP plan, but before resolution). I have also added context. The Jewish Agency representative criticized the plan on Jerusalem, but said they could accept the trade off if it got them a state. The previous formulation makes it appear as if the Jewish Agency was in opposition to partition. They supported it, but wanted more, and the existing source makes that quite clear.
The Begin quote does not appear to match up with the Google books version of the citation. Can somebody confirm it? It is otherwise relevant, and the sentiment expressed is surely accurate. It just doesn't seem to match the cite.
There were two sources alleging that it is a myth that Jews accepted the peace plan and arabs rejected them. One of the sources actually provided no specific information. We were just told that there are myths. So I deleted it since the mere existence of myths is not relevant. The text surrounding the other source is relevant, so I have left it. I observe that this source has been criticized as not actually having demonstrated that what it says are myths are actually myths and I suspect that we can do a better job of providing it with better context in our article, but I have left this for somebody else to do. Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
1 Resolutions of the General Assembly are adopted not passed.
2 Below is the key wording of the resolution: it is a recommendation:-
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;..... [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trahelliven ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC) sorry I forgot to sign it. Trahelliven( talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations? The short answer is No. When a state is admmitted by the General Assembly, at least in the admission of Yemen and Pakistan in 1947, the operative words were Decides to admit (108 II). http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm. I have not checked further resolutions in the list.
To say that the General Assembly passed it (meaning the plan) is not quite what the resolution said. A first time reader in the present case might be led to believe that the resolution was more than a recommendation.
The correct title of the plan was Plan of Partition with Economic Union; it shoul be described as such. Trahelliven( talk) 10:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
To No More Mr Nice Guy
Jsolinsky Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations?
No More Mr Nice Guy Actually, the short answer is yes except for admitting new members which requires a Security Council resolution first. It's all explained in the UN Charter.
Trahelliven The short answer is stiil NO: Resolutions 117(II), 125(II), 148(II), 149(II), and 150(II), none are recommendations. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm Trahelliven( talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
For completeness, perhaps I should have noted that none of the resolutions listed deal with the admission of a state to the UN. Trahelliven( talk) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone assist me? The reference at the end of the first paragraph in the lede is a cumbersome way to the text of Resolution 181(II). To the immediate right appears an easier way of accessing the Resolution - Code: A/RES/181(II) (Document). Could someone assist me in substituting the reference with what appears to be the easier access? I apologise for my technical incompetence. Thanks. Trahelliven( talk) 16:66, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy. Thanks. Trahelliven( talk) 16:66, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The article as it stands has a glaring omission. Was it ever implemented? I have tried to make my answer to that question as bland as possible. I would have thought that the history of the area of the former Mandate gives the answer. I have therefore, in breach of all the rules, not attempted to give any reference though I am sure that others might find one. Has anyone got any suggestions:
1 Can anyone find an appropriate reference?
2 Can it can be expanded without endless edits and reverts?
3 Is it simply fatuous to insert a section along these lines? Trahelliven ( talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of situations in which obvious facts are included without a reference. They only get removed if something is challenged. As things stand, we have clearly explained the plain. What came to pass is different. Therefore, it is plain that the plan never came to pass. I have moved it back into the introduction where I think it belongs. (Also, a section with only this one fact seems a little unnecessary) Jsolinsky ( talk) 03:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Trahelliven ( talk) 15:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a good point and highlights the fact that the lede is misleading. It suggests that the approved plan led smoothly to the Israeli declaration, ignoring the important facts that being the UNGA (not the UNSC) the resolution was non binding, that the UNSC declined to vote on it (see comments by Warren Austin), instead making attempts to diffuse the fighting (see United Nations Security Council Resolution 42) and that this was all followed by the Truman Trusteeship proposal. These facts are well covered in the scholarly literature and should be summarised here. See e.g. here. Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
A deletion discussion is ongoing regarding the subsequent event in international diplomacy following the Partition Plan - please could all interested editors kindly contribute to the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truman trusteeship proposal. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.
What it this statement supposed to mean? This is completly contradictory with the rest of the article. So its upon the reader to decide whether the Jews accepted the resolution and whether the Arabs rejected it? StoneProphet ( talk) 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully of some use in throwing light on Flapan's statement, sources and extracts from sources which address Arab and Jewish reactions to partition in more detail:
Palestine Post. 15 Jul 1937. David Ben-Gurion. The Jews.
Avi Shlaim, The Debate About 1948, from The Israel/Palestine Question (edited by Ilan Pappé): p162 - "It is true that all the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, rejected the UN partition plan. It is true that seven Arab armies invaded Palestine the morning after the State of Israel was proclaimed. It is true that the invasion was accompanied by blood-curdling rhetoric and threats to throw the Jews into the sea. It is true that in addition to the regular Arab armies and the Mufti’s Holy War army, various groups of volunteers arrived in Palestine, the most important of which was the Arab Liberation Army, sponsored by the Arab League and led by the Syrian adventurer Fawzi al-Qawuqji. More importantly, it is true that the military experts of the Arab League had worked out a unified plan for the invasion and that this plan was all the more dangerous for having had more limited and realistic objectives than those implied by the wild Pan-Arab rhetoric. But King Abdullah, who was given nominal command over all the Arab forces in Palestine, wrecked this plan by making last-minute changes. His objective in sending his army into Palestine was not to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, but to make himself master of the Arab part of Palestine, which meant preventing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."
Mike Berry and Greg Philo, Israel and Palestine Competing Histories:
p13ff - Ben-Gurion's position in the wake of Peel Commision:
"The Peel Commission proposed that the north-west
part of Palestine, accounting for 20 per cent of the country
though containing its most fertile land, would become a Jewish
state, while the remaining 80 per cent would become an Arab
state linked to Transjordan. A corridor to the sea would remain
under British control, as would Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The proposal received a mixed reception among Jews. One
group, centred on Jabotinsky’s Revisionists, argued that a
Jewish state should only be set up in the whole of Palestine
and Transjordan. Another, which included Weizmann and
David Ben-Gurion, argued that this was a historic opportunity
to create the Jewish state. The Israeli historian
Simha Flapan suggests that Ben-Gurion accepted the plan as a stepping stone to Zionist control of all of Palestine, and points to comments
he made before the Zionist executive in 1937 that: ‘after the
formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment
of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to
the whole of the Palestine’ (Ben-Gurion, cited in Flapan, 1987:
22). The Israeli historian and Ha’aretz columnist Tom Segev
(2001) suggests that for Ben-Gurion the proposal (inherent
in the Peel recommendations) for the ‘forced transfer’ of the
Arab inhabitants out of the proposed Jewish state, and the
creation therefore of a ‘really Jewish’ state, outweighed all the
drawbacks of the proposal."
p24 - 1947:
"Gilbert (1999) suggests they were also wary of alienating Arab
opinion because they were concerned to protect their oil
interests in the region. The foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin,
perhaps with this in mind, indicted that he favoured ‘an
independent unitary State in Palestine, with special rights for
the Jewish minority, but incorporating as much as possible of
the Arab plan’ (cited in Gilbert, 1999: 142). Bevin also argued
that a Zionist government in Palestine would be unlikely to
accept any partition as fi nal but would sooner or later seek to
expand its borders. Arab hostility to the Zionist project, he
predicted, might lead to long-term instability in the region: ‘If
Jewish irredentism is likely to develop after an interval, Arab
irredentism is certain from the outset. Thus the existence of
a Jewish State might prove a constant factor of unrest in the
Middle East’ (cited in Gilbert, 1999: 142). In February 1947 the
British decided to end the mandate and hand the question of
Palestine to the United Nations."
p25 -
"The Arab states as well as a number of
others indicated that they did not consider themselves bound
by the resolution as they argued it violated the terms of the UN
Charter (United Nations, 1990)."
p27 -
"The reaction
of the Zionist leadership is more contested. Some historians,
such as Bregman (2003), argue that the partition resolution
was seen as a triumph because it allowed for the creation of
a Jewish state in an area three times that recommended by
the Peel plan ten years earlier. Shlaim claims that the reaction
was more ambivalent. He suggests that it was accepted by
most Zionist leaders with a ‘heavy heart’ because they ‘did
not like the idea of an independent Palestinian state, they
were disappointed with the exclusion of Jerusalem, and they
had grave doubts about the viability of the State within the
UN borders’ (2000: 25). He notes that it was dismissed out of
hand by Jewish paramilitary groups, who demanded all of
Palestine for the Jewish state. Gilbert suggests that the Zionist
leadership realised that war was inevitable and that Ben-Gurion
‘contemplated the possibility of fi ghting to extend the area
allotted to the Jews’ (1999: 149). Gilbert cites orders from
Ben-Gurion that Jewish forces should ‘safeguard the entire
Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine] and settlements
(wherever they may be), to conquer the whole country or
most of it, and to maintain its occupation until the attainment
of an authoritative political settlement’ (Ben-Gurion, cited in
Gilbert, 1999: 149). Hirst (1977) suggests that the partition
plan was accepted by the Zionists because they anticipated they
would quickly be able militarily to overwhelm the Arabs, and
unilaterally expand the borders of the Jewish state."
p28 -
"The UN partition plan did not solve the problems in Palestine.
The Arab Higher Committee rejected it outright and called a
three-day strike. The Mufti of Jerusalem announced a jihad or
struggle for Jerusalem. Fighting between the two communities
broke out in early December 1947, and the situation quickly
deteriorated into a civil war in which both sides attacked
civilian as well as military targets (Gilbert, 1999)."
p28 -
"In early April, Zionist
forces launched a major offensive code named Plan Dalet.
According to Avi Shlaim, the aim of Plan Dalet was ‘to secure
all the areas allocated to the Israeli state under the UN partition
resolution as well as Jewish settlements outside these areas and
corridors leading to them’ (2000: 31). Arab towns and cities
were captured and their populations removed so as ‘to clear
the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile
Arab elements’ in anticipation of an attack by the combined
armies of the neighbouring Arab states (2000: 31)."
p31 -
"The declaration did
not specify the borders of the new state, because Ben-Gurion
wanted to keep open the possibility of expansion beyond the
UN borders."
p35ff -
"A third UN truce came into effect on 31 October, which
lasted until 22 December, when Israel again broke the truce by
launching Operation Horev. This was highly successful, with
the Israeli army driving the Egyptians out of the Negev and
following it into Egypt proper. Eventually Britain intervened on
the Egyptian side under the terms of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian
Treaty, and after forceful pressure from President Truman Ben-
Gurion agreed to withdraw his troops from the Sinai and accept
a new truce."
Encyclopedia of the Palestinians (2005), Abdullah and the Zionists, p7 -
"The irreconcilable conflict
between the Arab and Jewish national movements in Palestine provided the setting for the emergence of the special relationship between the Hashemite emir and the Jewish Agency. The two sides had a common protector, Britain, and a common enemy, al-Hajj Amin AL-HUSAYNI, the mufti (Islamic law expert) of Jerusalem and the leader of the Palestinians. Al-Hajj Amin had not only opposed the Zionist movement, but was also Abdullah’s principal rival for the loyalty of the Palestinians and for
the control of Palestine."
"It was not until
1937, when the PEEL COMMISSION suggested that Palestine might be partitioned and that Abdullah might rule the Arab part, that Palestine became
the main focus of Abdullah’s territorial ambition."
"During World War II, Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni
threw in his lot with Nazi Germany; Abdullah and the Zionists remained loyal to Britain. Britain rewarded Abdullah for his loyalty by conferring formal independence on the Mandated territory of Transjordan in March 1946. The Zionists, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, intensified the struggle for a state of their own. However, they needed an Arab leader willing to accept a partition of Palestine and to live in peace with a Jewish state; King Abdullah appeared to be the only ruler prepared
to accept the partition of Palestine."
Richard Forer - Commit Yourself To The Truth, Cutting Through the Confusion About Israel/Palestine ( 1, 2), 22 June 2010:
Here is what Morris (who is a Zionist and believes that Palestinians are 'psychopaths' and 'serial killers') says in Righteous Victims, p.138:
[Weizmann and Ben-Gurion] saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine... [Ben-Gurion] 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 efforts to redeem the whole country.
The above passage by Ben-Gurion expresses a common intention that he and the majority of Zionists shared for more than a decade before 1948. Confirmation of this can be found in many books on the subject.
← ZScarpia 16:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) (11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC): expanded introductory sentence)
Whatever the original legal status of Resolution 181, it is arguable that by the morning of 15 May 1948, it was dead:-
2 and 3 amounted to a rejection of Resolution 181.
Nevertheless by refering, in the letter to President Truman [3], to frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, the new state was in some sense still limiting its boundaries. Trahelliven ( talk) 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
" Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war. [2]"
I have moved this to the talk page for discussion. I'm hoping other people can give their opinion about this statement under the "Jewish reaction" section. I think it violates WP:FRINGE/ WP:UNDUE and also doesn't seem appropriate to be under the Jewish reaction section in the first place. Also it doesn't give any detail about why he calls these things myths, contrary to all the other info we have in the article. Thoughts? 99.237.236.218 ( talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen the long discussion above? The text should be added back in, while it is being discussed. It is certainly not a fringe opinion, so what else would you like to add to it? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to remove it, then you need to show that it is a fringe opinion. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
99.237.236.218 -- It's OK where it is now in the article (though it would be better in a separate "Historiography" section). It would be highly inappropriate to put it in the lead section, or to present it as uncontested fact, rather than as the opinions of Simha Flapan, but its presence in the article is reasonable as it stands now (though it isn't actually "important", as Ding dong claimed in an edit summary)... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't really notice that this had crept into the article. I don't think they were known by that name in 1947, and they probably only existed in rather incipient embryonic form. I'm removing the "Members (2011)" column from the table immediately as being anachronistic and irrelevant; the rest of the table should be redone to conform with the terminology and facts of 1947... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG's reversion of two areas. Reason: "QUOTEFARM , a primary source of unclear relevance, and restoring factual statement. sources to follow"
[4]
1) " unclear relevance" Odd. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision - Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver (News report
34 confirmed by
35)
Unclear relevance how? The article already says "the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details."
I've given an official instance of that acceptance by a "recognized representative of the Jewish community" according to
Policy: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
2) "factual statement" Are readers to believe Weizmann was the only person who made a statement? (completely un-sourced, yet oddly no complaint from you
until I made an edit).
3) Official Statements to the UNSC on the Arab States refusal to accept the resolution
Was there no official reaction to the Arab state's refusal?
The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” - Rabbi Silver 19 March 1948 - quoting Mr. Herschel Johnson
Irrelevant how?
BTW A secondary source
may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.
3 "Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material."
NMMNG - "sources to follow" You had no sources?
talknic (
talk)
Q1) That is indeed policy. What you're trying to do is exactly the kind of misuse the policy warns against. You are trying to lead the reader to believe that Israel bound itself to the Partition Plan. If that was indeed the case, please find a reliable secondary source that says so. Selectively quoting primary sources in a way that someone without "specialist knowledge" (in this case of history and international law) might misunderstand is not allowed.
Q2) See above. Find a secondary source that explains what Silver was saying.
Q3) The QUOTEFARM which you inserted constituted around 1/3 of the section. That is indeed UNDUE.
Q4) It does. So what?
Q5) I don't see how the Saul S Friendman book is relevant. If you're talking about cite #29, I don't see where it said Israel bound itself to 181. Perhaps one needs some "specialist knowledge" to make that interpretation?
To summarize, you have a theory that Israel bound itself to the partition plan. Unfortunatly, you are unable to find scholarship to support that theory so you want to use primary sources to lead a reader without "specialist knowledge" to your conclusion. That is not allowed, as I have explained to you many many times in the past.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
BUMP - Can anyone answer why official acceptance of the plan by the Jewish representatives should not be included in this article other than certain editors don't like it? talknic ( talk) 01:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talknic A reader who sees the words, voted to adopt might very well think that the Resolution of the UNGA was binding. If the actual words of the resolution are used, that misapprehension should be avoided. To put it differently, it was the resolution that was adopted, not the Plan of Partition. I am reverting Talknic's edit. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talknic
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
Itsmejudith Talknic
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II). In the Resolution the General Assembly recommended to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set at the foot of the Resolution. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith
You will need an expert in English rather than an historian. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the Future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). [3]
I think the second paragraph should be moved to a separate section, and a note on Parts III and IV of the Plan added. Trahelliven ( talk) 00:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). [4] Trahelliven ( talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG The clue is that the phrase is used twice, once in capitals and once without. if you you go to a shop to buy a table, you will ask for a table because you may not b fussy as to which one. Once you have bought a table, you would now refer to a specific table, it is now the table. If you want to give the object some importance, you give it capitals. The Queen nowadays, to the British, refers to Queen Elizabeth, while a queen is just the generic term. See definite article (the) and indefinite article (a). Trahelliven ( talk) 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). [5]
I think there is a mistake in the sentence "Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population." In the "Arab Reaction" sub section. This sentence contradicts the table under section "Proposed Division" based on Report of UNSCOP – 1947. The sentence should say that 45 percent of the population in the proposed Jewish state would be Arab. Even though I see this as a simple correction, seeing this article is sensitive I did not take the liberty to make the edit, please help me verify this and make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.other ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article
Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war. [6]
References
- ^ RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS SECOND SESSION
- ^ The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13–54, Myth Two pages 55–80
- ^ "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13–54, Myth Two pages 55–80
I do not have access to the full source, but from google books I can see that on page 30, he says "The UNSCOP report was published on September 8th. The Arab League responded almost immediately by denouncing the partition proposal and setting up a committee to consider military measures..." [8] This seems like the exact opposite of what we have in the article. Also, the ref has separate ranges of pages for each "myth" which leads me to think this is someone's interpretation of large chunks of the book, SYNTHed into a conclusion, which I don't think is allowed.
Could someone post some quotes from the book that support the text we had in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The summary in the lede goes as follows: The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. I do not want to alter the relevant section in the article at all. The problem is that the lede does not reflect the reservations of sections of the Jewish community as set out in the main body of the article. Perhaps the lede might simply say:- Subject to some reservations and exceptions, the Jewish community accepted the plan of partition. Trahelliven ( talk) 01:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the Jewish Agency indicated acceptance to the UN, However the lede needs to reflect the fact that certain Jewish groups did not agree with the position taken by the Jewish Agency, i.e. the Irgun as you yourself point out and is so mentioned in the main boddy of the article.
Trahelliven (
talk)
19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The main body of the article clearly shows, regardless of any official position of the Jewish Agency, that a significant section of the community at the very least had doubts about the plan of partition. The lede needs to reflect that. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I found what I was looking for. It is a note in the Virtual Jewish Library - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Orgs/jafi.html Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) "It was constituted (1929) by the World Zionist Organization to represent the Jewish community in the Land of Israel vis-a-vis the British Mandate authorities, foreign governments and international organizations." I also have no doubt that the Jewish Agency indicated its acceptance of the plan of partition. The lede has got it the wrong way around. Perhaps it should read:-
AnonMoos
Pluto2012 -- Your phrase "partial rejection"[sic] is quasi-disingenuous, since you have every reason to be aware of the fact that the official response was an acceptance, while the rejections were merely private opinions of individuals, or the positions of minority factions which did not have control over the recognized official bodies representing the Jewish mandate community... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. How about:- The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency, but with certain reservations from some sections of the Jewish community.. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Some points:
← ZScarpia 15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The "heart of hearts" test is not normally applied to articles on diplomatic agreements, proposed diplomatic agreements, and United Nations resolutions. I'm sure that the United States in its "heart of hearts" did not really agree to the Panama Canal Treaty, but I don't know how that's relevant to anything (and such "heart of hearts" tests would appear to have a lot more to do with psychoanalysis than objective history)... AnonMoos ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the reservation could be expressed - with reservations from a small sections of the Jewish community. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The whole sentence The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. should be omitted. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
FROM A READER TO THE EDITORS
The last statement in the lead: "The partition plan was not implemented" is incorrect. The statement in the section Subsequent Events: "The partition plan was never fully implemented" is correct, but in my view could be better expressed as "The Partition Plan was partly implemented, by the Jewish side". Resolution 181(II) said that either side could declare independence as envisaged in the Plan. Israel in its Declaration of Establishment quoted the Resolution as "recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State". The Declaration also says that "the State is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel". (= Palestine. i.e Israel was willing to fulfill as far as it could the Plan for Partition with Economic Union.) Furthermore, it should be mentioned that, in its request for recognition by the United States and others, Israel stated that its borders were those specified in the Plan (see e.g http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/BD240CA5-379D-4FAE-81A8-069902AD1E7F/0/Truman3.pdf)
I am not able to edit the page myself, but hope other editors will consider my suggestions. Walk Tall Hang Loose ( talk) 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can work out the only step taken to implement the resolution of 29 November 1947 was the establishment of the Commission envisaged in PART I A. 1. Technically the Declaration of the Establshment of Israel of 14 May 1948 was invalid because under PART I A. 3. of the resolution the three entiies were not supposed to come int existence until at least 15 July 1948, two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed i.e. on 15 July 1948. The section 'Subsequent events' needs to be appropriately expanded. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The argument that it is the Arabs fault for being in the current siuation goes something like this. Someone comes up to m and demands one of my three oranges. Upon this demand not being met, he promptly takes two and then says it is my fault that I now have only one. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You deleted the description of the Negev as arid and desert. However, wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. The negev is arid and desert. It is a well known fact. Anyway, if you feel that it is questionable, I will provide a source. Ykantor ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a better use of your time (both of you) would be to sort out the contradictions. Does Wolffe really say the Arab State was 45 percent of the country? Morris (same page) says 35 percent. Also the article says the Jews were given 56 percent but Morris says 62 percent. Note that one source of confusion is that the partition in the UNSCOP report was substantially modified by the UN subcommittee. Zero talk 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If the Negev is a desert with a lot of rain, like that in Johannesburg, then arid should be deleted. Trahelliven ( talk) 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I have some problems with the inclusion of the quotation:-
In my view the quotation should be removed. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
To avoid all these difficulties, the simplest description of what was invaded is the territory in the former British Mandate. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Arguing about reject and repudiate is not worth the effort. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the partition map in the infobox with a version that shows the boundaries proposed by UNSCOP as well as those adopted in Res 181. The difference is interesting. Zero talk 12:16, 10 August 2013 (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 10 |
I made significant edits to the section on Jewish reaction. Drawn out semantic arguments do nobody any good, and anyway the previous section didn't adequately characterize the Jewish reaction. The Jewish reaction to the partition plan was, unambiguously, one of celebration. This is supported by hundreds upon hundreds of sources. Here is a summary of my other edits:
The old section had a comment by Ben Gurion made during UNSCOP deliberations to UNSCOP. If we want to keep this, it should go in the section on UNSCOP deliberations. In my opinion, once placed in context, it no longer meets the threshold for relevance.
This statement was paired with a Jewish Agency comment criticizing the partition on the issue of Jerusalem. I HAVE retained that, but have moved it earlier to maintain chronological order (after UNSCOP plan, but before resolution). I have also added context. The Jewish Agency representative criticized the plan on Jerusalem, but said they could accept the trade off if it got them a state. The previous formulation makes it appear as if the Jewish Agency was in opposition to partition. They supported it, but wanted more, and the existing source makes that quite clear.
The Begin quote does not appear to match up with the Google books version of the citation. Can somebody confirm it? It is otherwise relevant, and the sentiment expressed is surely accurate. It just doesn't seem to match the cite.
There were two sources alleging that it is a myth that Jews accepted the peace plan and arabs rejected them. One of the sources actually provided no specific information. We were just told that there are myths. So I deleted it since the mere existence of myths is not relevant. The text surrounding the other source is relevant, so I have left it. I observe that this source has been criticized as not actually having demonstrated that what it says are myths are actually myths and I suspect that we can do a better job of providing it with better context in our article, but I have left this for somebody else to do. Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
1 Resolutions of the General Assembly are adopted not passed.
2 Below is the key wording of the resolution: it is a recommendation:-
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;..... [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trahelliven ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC) sorry I forgot to sign it. Trahelliven( talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations? The short answer is No. When a state is admmitted by the General Assembly, at least in the admission of Yemen and Pakistan in 1947, the operative words were Decides to admit (108 II). http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm. I have not checked further resolutions in the list.
To say that the General Assembly passed it (meaning the plan) is not quite what the resolution said. A first time reader in the present case might be led to believe that the resolution was more than a recommendation.
The correct title of the plan was Plan of Partition with Economic Union; it shoul be described as such. Trahelliven( talk) 10:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
To No More Mr Nice Guy
Jsolinsky Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations?
No More Mr Nice Guy Actually, the short answer is yes except for admitting new members which requires a Security Council resolution first. It's all explained in the UN Charter.
Trahelliven The short answer is stiil NO: Resolutions 117(II), 125(II), 148(II), 149(II), and 150(II), none are recommendations. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm Trahelliven( talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
For completeness, perhaps I should have noted that none of the resolutions listed deal with the admission of a state to the UN. Trahelliven( talk) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone assist me? The reference at the end of the first paragraph in the lede is a cumbersome way to the text of Resolution 181(II). To the immediate right appears an easier way of accessing the Resolution - Code: A/RES/181(II) (Document). Could someone assist me in substituting the reference with what appears to be the easier access? I apologise for my technical incompetence. Thanks. Trahelliven( talk) 16:66, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy. Thanks. Trahelliven( talk) 16:66, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The article as it stands has a glaring omission. Was it ever implemented? I have tried to make my answer to that question as bland as possible. I would have thought that the history of the area of the former Mandate gives the answer. I have therefore, in breach of all the rules, not attempted to give any reference though I am sure that others might find one. Has anyone got any suggestions:
1 Can anyone find an appropriate reference?
2 Can it can be expanded without endless edits and reverts?
3 Is it simply fatuous to insert a section along these lines? Trahelliven ( talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of situations in which obvious facts are included without a reference. They only get removed if something is challenged. As things stand, we have clearly explained the plain. What came to pass is different. Therefore, it is plain that the plan never came to pass. I have moved it back into the introduction where I think it belongs. (Also, a section with only this one fact seems a little unnecessary) Jsolinsky ( talk) 03:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Trahelliven ( talk) 15:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a good point and highlights the fact that the lede is misleading. It suggests that the approved plan led smoothly to the Israeli declaration, ignoring the important facts that being the UNGA (not the UNSC) the resolution was non binding, that the UNSC declined to vote on it (see comments by Warren Austin), instead making attempts to diffuse the fighting (see United Nations Security Council Resolution 42) and that this was all followed by the Truman Trusteeship proposal. These facts are well covered in the scholarly literature and should be summarised here. See e.g. here. Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
A deletion discussion is ongoing regarding the subsequent event in international diplomacy following the Partition Plan - please could all interested editors kindly contribute to the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truman trusteeship proposal. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.
What it this statement supposed to mean? This is completly contradictory with the rest of the article. So its upon the reader to decide whether the Jews accepted the resolution and whether the Arabs rejected it? StoneProphet ( talk) 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully of some use in throwing light on Flapan's statement, sources and extracts from sources which address Arab and Jewish reactions to partition in more detail:
Palestine Post. 15 Jul 1937. David Ben-Gurion. The Jews.
Avi Shlaim, The Debate About 1948, from The Israel/Palestine Question (edited by Ilan Pappé): p162 - "It is true that all the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, rejected the UN partition plan. It is true that seven Arab armies invaded Palestine the morning after the State of Israel was proclaimed. It is true that the invasion was accompanied by blood-curdling rhetoric and threats to throw the Jews into the sea. It is true that in addition to the regular Arab armies and the Mufti’s Holy War army, various groups of volunteers arrived in Palestine, the most important of which was the Arab Liberation Army, sponsored by the Arab League and led by the Syrian adventurer Fawzi al-Qawuqji. More importantly, it is true that the military experts of the Arab League had worked out a unified plan for the invasion and that this plan was all the more dangerous for having had more limited and realistic objectives than those implied by the wild Pan-Arab rhetoric. But King Abdullah, who was given nominal command over all the Arab forces in Palestine, wrecked this plan by making last-minute changes. His objective in sending his army into Palestine was not to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, but to make himself master of the Arab part of Palestine, which meant preventing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."
Mike Berry and Greg Philo, Israel and Palestine Competing Histories:
p13ff - Ben-Gurion's position in the wake of Peel Commision:
"The Peel Commission proposed that the north-west
part of Palestine, accounting for 20 per cent of the country
though containing its most fertile land, would become a Jewish
state, while the remaining 80 per cent would become an Arab
state linked to Transjordan. A corridor to the sea would remain
under British control, as would Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The proposal received a mixed reception among Jews. One
group, centred on Jabotinsky’s Revisionists, argued that a
Jewish state should only be set up in the whole of Palestine
and Transjordan. Another, which included Weizmann and
David Ben-Gurion, argued that this was a historic opportunity
to create the Jewish state. The Israeli historian
Simha Flapan suggests that Ben-Gurion accepted the plan as a stepping stone to Zionist control of all of Palestine, and points to comments
he made before the Zionist executive in 1937 that: ‘after the
formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment
of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to
the whole of the Palestine’ (Ben-Gurion, cited in Flapan, 1987:
22). The Israeli historian and Ha’aretz columnist Tom Segev
(2001) suggests that for Ben-Gurion the proposal (inherent
in the Peel recommendations) for the ‘forced transfer’ of the
Arab inhabitants out of the proposed Jewish state, and the
creation therefore of a ‘really Jewish’ state, outweighed all the
drawbacks of the proposal."
p24 - 1947:
"Gilbert (1999) suggests they were also wary of alienating Arab
opinion because they were concerned to protect their oil
interests in the region. The foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin,
perhaps with this in mind, indicted that he favoured ‘an
independent unitary State in Palestine, with special rights for
the Jewish minority, but incorporating as much as possible of
the Arab plan’ (cited in Gilbert, 1999: 142). Bevin also argued
that a Zionist government in Palestine would be unlikely to
accept any partition as fi nal but would sooner or later seek to
expand its borders. Arab hostility to the Zionist project, he
predicted, might lead to long-term instability in the region: ‘If
Jewish irredentism is likely to develop after an interval, Arab
irredentism is certain from the outset. Thus the existence of
a Jewish State might prove a constant factor of unrest in the
Middle East’ (cited in Gilbert, 1999: 142). In February 1947 the
British decided to end the mandate and hand the question of
Palestine to the United Nations."
p25 -
"The Arab states as well as a number of
others indicated that they did not consider themselves bound
by the resolution as they argued it violated the terms of the UN
Charter (United Nations, 1990)."
p27 -
"The reaction
of the Zionist leadership is more contested. Some historians,
such as Bregman (2003), argue that the partition resolution
was seen as a triumph because it allowed for the creation of
a Jewish state in an area three times that recommended by
the Peel plan ten years earlier. Shlaim claims that the reaction
was more ambivalent. He suggests that it was accepted by
most Zionist leaders with a ‘heavy heart’ because they ‘did
not like the idea of an independent Palestinian state, they
were disappointed with the exclusion of Jerusalem, and they
had grave doubts about the viability of the State within the
UN borders’ (2000: 25). He notes that it was dismissed out of
hand by Jewish paramilitary groups, who demanded all of
Palestine for the Jewish state. Gilbert suggests that the Zionist
leadership realised that war was inevitable and that Ben-Gurion
‘contemplated the possibility of fi ghting to extend the area
allotted to the Jews’ (1999: 149). Gilbert cites orders from
Ben-Gurion that Jewish forces should ‘safeguard the entire
Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine] and settlements
(wherever they may be), to conquer the whole country or
most of it, and to maintain its occupation until the attainment
of an authoritative political settlement’ (Ben-Gurion, cited in
Gilbert, 1999: 149). Hirst (1977) suggests that the partition
plan was accepted by the Zionists because they anticipated they
would quickly be able militarily to overwhelm the Arabs, and
unilaterally expand the borders of the Jewish state."
p28 -
"The UN partition plan did not solve the problems in Palestine.
The Arab Higher Committee rejected it outright and called a
three-day strike. The Mufti of Jerusalem announced a jihad or
struggle for Jerusalem. Fighting between the two communities
broke out in early December 1947, and the situation quickly
deteriorated into a civil war in which both sides attacked
civilian as well as military targets (Gilbert, 1999)."
p28 -
"In early April, Zionist
forces launched a major offensive code named Plan Dalet.
According to Avi Shlaim, the aim of Plan Dalet was ‘to secure
all the areas allocated to the Israeli state under the UN partition
resolution as well as Jewish settlements outside these areas and
corridors leading to them’ (2000: 31). Arab towns and cities
were captured and their populations removed so as ‘to clear
the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile
Arab elements’ in anticipation of an attack by the combined
armies of the neighbouring Arab states (2000: 31)."
p31 -
"The declaration did
not specify the borders of the new state, because Ben-Gurion
wanted to keep open the possibility of expansion beyond the
UN borders."
p35ff -
"A third UN truce came into effect on 31 October, which
lasted until 22 December, when Israel again broke the truce by
launching Operation Horev. This was highly successful, with
the Israeli army driving the Egyptians out of the Negev and
following it into Egypt proper. Eventually Britain intervened on
the Egyptian side under the terms of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian
Treaty, and after forceful pressure from President Truman Ben-
Gurion agreed to withdraw his troops from the Sinai and accept
a new truce."
Encyclopedia of the Palestinians (2005), Abdullah and the Zionists, p7 -
"The irreconcilable conflict
between the Arab and Jewish national movements in Palestine provided the setting for the emergence of the special relationship between the Hashemite emir and the Jewish Agency. The two sides had a common protector, Britain, and a common enemy, al-Hajj Amin AL-HUSAYNI, the mufti (Islamic law expert) of Jerusalem and the leader of the Palestinians. Al-Hajj Amin had not only opposed the Zionist movement, but was also Abdullah’s principal rival for the loyalty of the Palestinians and for
the control of Palestine."
"It was not until
1937, when the PEEL COMMISSION suggested that Palestine might be partitioned and that Abdullah might rule the Arab part, that Palestine became
the main focus of Abdullah’s territorial ambition."
"During World War II, Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni
threw in his lot with Nazi Germany; Abdullah and the Zionists remained loyal to Britain. Britain rewarded Abdullah for his loyalty by conferring formal independence on the Mandated territory of Transjordan in March 1946. The Zionists, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, intensified the struggle for a state of their own. However, they needed an Arab leader willing to accept a partition of Palestine and to live in peace with a Jewish state; King Abdullah appeared to be the only ruler prepared
to accept the partition of Palestine."
Richard Forer - Commit Yourself To The Truth, Cutting Through the Confusion About Israel/Palestine ( 1, 2), 22 June 2010:
Here is what Morris (who is a Zionist and believes that Palestinians are 'psychopaths' and 'serial killers') says in Righteous Victims, p.138:
[Weizmann and Ben-Gurion] saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine... [Ben-Gurion] 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 efforts to redeem the whole country.
The above passage by Ben-Gurion expresses a common intention that he and the majority of Zionists shared for more than a decade before 1948. Confirmation of this can be found in many books on the subject.
← ZScarpia 16:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) (11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC): expanded introductory sentence)
Whatever the original legal status of Resolution 181, it is arguable that by the morning of 15 May 1948, it was dead:-
2 and 3 amounted to a rejection of Resolution 181.
Nevertheless by refering, in the letter to President Truman [3], to frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, the new state was in some sense still limiting its boundaries. Trahelliven ( talk) 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
" Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war. [2]"
I have moved this to the talk page for discussion. I'm hoping other people can give their opinion about this statement under the "Jewish reaction" section. I think it violates WP:FRINGE/ WP:UNDUE and also doesn't seem appropriate to be under the Jewish reaction section in the first place. Also it doesn't give any detail about why he calls these things myths, contrary to all the other info we have in the article. Thoughts? 99.237.236.218 ( talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen the long discussion above? The text should be added back in, while it is being discussed. It is certainly not a fringe opinion, so what else would you like to add to it? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to remove it, then you need to show that it is a fringe opinion. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
99.237.236.218 -- It's OK where it is now in the article (though it would be better in a separate "Historiography" section). It would be highly inappropriate to put it in the lead section, or to present it as uncontested fact, rather than as the opinions of Simha Flapan, but its presence in the article is reasonable as it stands now (though it isn't actually "important", as Ding dong claimed in an edit summary)... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't really notice that this had crept into the article. I don't think they were known by that name in 1947, and they probably only existed in rather incipient embryonic form. I'm removing the "Members (2011)" column from the table immediately as being anachronistic and irrelevant; the rest of the table should be redone to conform with the terminology and facts of 1947... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG's reversion of two areas. Reason: "QUOTEFARM , a primary source of unclear relevance, and restoring factual statement. sources to follow"
[4]
1) " unclear relevance" Odd. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision - Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver (News report
34 confirmed by
35)
Unclear relevance how? The article already says "the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details."
I've given an official instance of that acceptance by a "recognized representative of the Jewish community" according to
Policy: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
2) "factual statement" Are readers to believe Weizmann was the only person who made a statement? (completely un-sourced, yet oddly no complaint from you
until I made an edit).
3) Official Statements to the UNSC on the Arab States refusal to accept the resolution
Was there no official reaction to the Arab state's refusal?
The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” - Rabbi Silver 19 March 1948 - quoting Mr. Herschel Johnson
Irrelevant how?
BTW A secondary source
may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.
3 "Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material."
NMMNG - "sources to follow" You had no sources?
talknic (
talk)
Q1) That is indeed policy. What you're trying to do is exactly the kind of misuse the policy warns against. You are trying to lead the reader to believe that Israel bound itself to the Partition Plan. If that was indeed the case, please find a reliable secondary source that says so. Selectively quoting primary sources in a way that someone without "specialist knowledge" (in this case of history and international law) might misunderstand is not allowed.
Q2) See above. Find a secondary source that explains what Silver was saying.
Q3) The QUOTEFARM which you inserted constituted around 1/3 of the section. That is indeed UNDUE.
Q4) It does. So what?
Q5) I don't see how the Saul S Friendman book is relevant. If you're talking about cite #29, I don't see where it said Israel bound itself to 181. Perhaps one needs some "specialist knowledge" to make that interpretation?
To summarize, you have a theory that Israel bound itself to the partition plan. Unfortunatly, you are unable to find scholarship to support that theory so you want to use primary sources to lead a reader without "specialist knowledge" to your conclusion. That is not allowed, as I have explained to you many many times in the past.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
BUMP - Can anyone answer why official acceptance of the plan by the Jewish representatives should not be included in this article other than certain editors don't like it? talknic ( talk) 01:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talknic A reader who sees the words, voted to adopt might very well think that the Resolution of the UNGA was binding. If the actual words of the resolution are used, that misapprehension should be avoided. To put it differently, it was the resolution that was adopted, not the Plan of Partition. I am reverting Talknic's edit. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talknic
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
Itsmejudith Talknic
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II). In the Resolution the General Assembly recommended to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set at the foot of the Resolution. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith
You will need an expert in English rather than an historian. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the Future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). [3]
I think the second paragraph should be moved to a separate section, and a note on Parts III and IV of the Plan added. Trahelliven ( talk) 00:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). [4] Trahelliven ( talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG The clue is that the phrase is used twice, once in capitals and once without. if you you go to a shop to buy a table, you will ask for a table because you may not b fussy as to which one. Once you have bought a table, you would now refer to a specific table, it is now the table. If you want to give the object some importance, you give it capitals. The Queen nowadays, to the British, refers to Queen Elizabeth, while a queen is just the generic term. See definite article (the) and indefinite article (a). Trahelliven ( talk) 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). [5]
I think there is a mistake in the sentence "Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population." In the "Arab Reaction" sub section. This sentence contradicts the table under section "Proposed Division" based on Report of UNSCOP – 1947. The sentence should say that 45 percent of the population in the proposed Jewish state would be Arab. Even though I see this as a simple correction, seeing this article is sensitive I did not take the liberty to make the edit, please help me verify this and make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.other ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article
Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war. [6]
References
- ^ RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS SECOND SESSION
- ^ The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13–54, Myth Two pages 55–80
- ^ "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. 1947. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13–54, Myth Two pages 55–80
I do not have access to the full source, but from google books I can see that on page 30, he says "The UNSCOP report was published on September 8th. The Arab League responded almost immediately by denouncing the partition proposal and setting up a committee to consider military measures..." [8] This seems like the exact opposite of what we have in the article. Also, the ref has separate ranges of pages for each "myth" which leads me to think this is someone's interpretation of large chunks of the book, SYNTHed into a conclusion, which I don't think is allowed.
Could someone post some quotes from the book that support the text we had in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The summary in the lede goes as follows: The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. I do not want to alter the relevant section in the article at all. The problem is that the lede does not reflect the reservations of sections of the Jewish community as set out in the main body of the article. Perhaps the lede might simply say:- Subject to some reservations and exceptions, the Jewish community accepted the plan of partition. Trahelliven ( talk) 01:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the Jewish Agency indicated acceptance to the UN, However the lede needs to reflect the fact that certain Jewish groups did not agree with the position taken by the Jewish Agency, i.e. the Irgun as you yourself point out and is so mentioned in the main boddy of the article.
Trahelliven (
talk)
19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The main body of the article clearly shows, regardless of any official position of the Jewish Agency, that a significant section of the community at the very least had doubts about the plan of partition. The lede needs to reflect that. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I found what I was looking for. It is a note in the Virtual Jewish Library - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Orgs/jafi.html Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) "It was constituted (1929) by the World Zionist Organization to represent the Jewish community in the Land of Israel vis-a-vis the British Mandate authorities, foreign governments and international organizations." I also have no doubt that the Jewish Agency indicated its acceptance of the plan of partition. The lede has got it the wrong way around. Perhaps it should read:-
AnonMoos
Pluto2012 -- Your phrase "partial rejection"[sic] is quasi-disingenuous, since you have every reason to be aware of the fact that the official response was an acceptance, while the rejections were merely private opinions of individuals, or the positions of minority factions which did not have control over the recognized official bodies representing the Jewish mandate community... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. How about:- The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency, but with certain reservations from some sections of the Jewish community.. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Some points:
← ZScarpia 15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The "heart of hearts" test is not normally applied to articles on diplomatic agreements, proposed diplomatic agreements, and United Nations resolutions. I'm sure that the United States in its "heart of hearts" did not really agree to the Panama Canal Treaty, but I don't know how that's relevant to anything (and such "heart of hearts" tests would appear to have a lot more to do with psychoanalysis than objective history)... AnonMoos ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the reservation could be expressed - with reservations from a small sections of the Jewish community. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The whole sentence The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. should be omitted. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
FROM A READER TO THE EDITORS
The last statement in the lead: "The partition plan was not implemented" is incorrect. The statement in the section Subsequent Events: "The partition plan was never fully implemented" is correct, but in my view could be better expressed as "The Partition Plan was partly implemented, by the Jewish side". Resolution 181(II) said that either side could declare independence as envisaged in the Plan. Israel in its Declaration of Establishment quoted the Resolution as "recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State". The Declaration also says that "the State is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel". (= Palestine. i.e Israel was willing to fulfill as far as it could the Plan for Partition with Economic Union.) Furthermore, it should be mentioned that, in its request for recognition by the United States and others, Israel stated that its borders were those specified in the Plan (see e.g http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/BD240CA5-379D-4FAE-81A8-069902AD1E7F/0/Truman3.pdf)
I am not able to edit the page myself, but hope other editors will consider my suggestions. Walk Tall Hang Loose ( talk) 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can work out the only step taken to implement the resolution of 29 November 1947 was the establishment of the Commission envisaged in PART I A. 1. Technically the Declaration of the Establshment of Israel of 14 May 1948 was invalid because under PART I A. 3. of the resolution the three entiies were not supposed to come int existence until at least 15 July 1948, two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed i.e. on 15 July 1948. The section 'Subsequent events' needs to be appropriately expanded. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The argument that it is the Arabs fault for being in the current siuation goes something like this. Someone comes up to m and demands one of my three oranges. Upon this demand not being met, he promptly takes two and then says it is my fault that I now have only one. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You deleted the description of the Negev as arid and desert. However, wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. The negev is arid and desert. It is a well known fact. Anyway, if you feel that it is questionable, I will provide a source. Ykantor ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a better use of your time (both of you) would be to sort out the contradictions. Does Wolffe really say the Arab State was 45 percent of the country? Morris (same page) says 35 percent. Also the article says the Jews were given 56 percent but Morris says 62 percent. Note that one source of confusion is that the partition in the UNSCOP report was substantially modified by the UN subcommittee. Zero talk 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If the Negev is a desert with a lot of rain, like that in Johannesburg, then arid should be deleted. Trahelliven ( talk) 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I have some problems with the inclusion of the quotation:-
In my view the quotation should be removed. Trahelliven ( talk) 07:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
To avoid all these difficulties, the simplest description of what was invaded is the territory in the former British Mandate. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Arguing about reject and repudiate is not worth the effort. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the partition map in the infobox with a version that shows the boundaries proposed by UNSCOP as well as those adopted in Res 181. The difference is interesting. Zero talk 12:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)