This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is very interesting. It's related to many articles around Wikipedia but I decided not to spam and to notify about it in just one place. I hope someone picks it up. -- Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If anyone's especially knowledgable in this area can they take a look at both Malcolm MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain#The Palestine White Paper to see if the relevant text needs modification. Timrollpickering 20:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On May 15, 1948, the government of the new state of Israel issued an injunction officially abolishing the White Paper.
Did it actually have the legal authority to rescind it? Timrollpickering 13:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually yes they did. The Nazis had complete control over all of France at one point, but I think De Gaulle still had grounds to object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 03:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
One of the consequence of the British White Papers was that European Jews were barred from entering Palestine. Had Churchill allowed Jewish immigration, the Holocaust may have been averted. I think it would be appropriate if this article broached this important consequence.
To return to the original quote - Neither the government of Israel not anyone else other than the UK parliament can abolish any act of that Parliament, including this White Paper. Shouldn't it say that Israel issued an injunction the effects of the White Paper would no longer be applied there Emeraude 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)?
The White Paper was a policy paper produced after an enquiry was carried out in the wake of the Arab Revolt. Of course, you cannot abolish a policy paper, only the regulations stemming from it which were in force in the Palestine area. Note that Churchill did not become Prime Minister until 1940, after the war had started, and, though being Prime Minister, wasn't a party leader, which limited his scope of action in areas like Jewish immigration in Palestine (see Churchill and the Holocaust by Martin Gilbert). Churchill, though an old-fashioned racist when it came to Indians and Arabs (he made a famous comment about Arabs being eaters of camel dung), was very pro-Semitic (presumably, since he was a racist otherwise, because he was Jewish on his mother's side) and pro-Zionist and did intervene to allow Jewish refugees to remain in Palestine who would otherwise have been deported. If unrestricted Jewish immigration had been allowed into Palestine during the war (and note that immigration was restricted, not totally stopped), the chances are that there would have been a renewal of the kinds of action taken by Arabs during the Revolt, the outcome that the White paper was trying to forestall. The question of where Jews could flee to before and during the war is one that I have never seen fully answered. It is common knowledge that Jewish immigration to the United States was severely restricted. Britain restricted Jewish immigration (at least partly because there was a fear that German agents would enter the country disguised as refugees), though reportedly, pro rata-ed, accepted more Jewish refugees than anywhere else, including the Kindertransport (which Ben Gurion opposed) children. Does anyone know what the situation was elsewhere in Europe, North and South America, the Soviet Union, Asia and India, Africa, Australia and New Zealand? Britain transported Jewish refugees intercepted on their way to Palestine who did not have entry visas, to places like Mauritius and (I am assuming) Cyprus. So that Spain would accept more Jewish refugees, the United States and Britain moved some of those already there to North Africa(?). -- ZScarpia ( talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My uncle escaped from Austria to Lithuania and when the USSR occupied Lithuania he was sent to the Gulag as an enemy alien (5 years hard labour) so that perhaps answers for the USSR. I know that Jews could not enter countries unless they had a transit visa, so you could not just get up and go, you needed visas for eveyr country on the way (peopel didn't usually fly in those days). My father required a trasnit visa for Britsian so he could go to the USA but the it was only issued after a question was aksked in parliament by Josiah Wedgewood which must have required a lto of connections. I own a limited edition copy of a the diary of a man who was sent to Mauritius (he died there) and describes how they were treated by the countries they passed through on the way out. At one point, in Hungary or Romania they (I think it was a group of a couple of hundred) were held for six months in a basketball court with one toilet and not allowed to leave (the court) becuase they lacked proper papers. Local Jews paid for their food. I think Jews were often regarded as physcially dangerous at that time. The British Empire was closed as far as I know though a few Jews made it to India. British empirial administrators regarded JEws as troublesome and criminal so they didn't want them. Shanghai was another relatively popular destination but I suppse you needed a lot fo money, connections and perhaps courage to amke it out there. Many people didn't appreciate the danger of staying. Holland and France took in quite a few but it didn't help them. I think Arthur Koestler was in camps in France and Holland where Jews were held as illegal immigrants. The British held legal Jewish migrants from Germany on the isle of Wight for a few years. Some amde it to South America - Claude Levi Strauss describes getting on a boat to Latin America amid heavy security because they were Jews. But the American countries closed their doors when they realized how many would be coming and bbecause like veryone else they bought into Nazi propganada about Jews being dangerous. My father's cousin got into Switzerland by threatening to put a curse on the border guard if he didn't admit him.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Autonomous Oblast. the Nazis suggested Madagascar Madagascar Plan. Molotov suggested the Crimea in the forties. Madagascar sounds better then Birobidjan. Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It goes like this: "Previous White Papers had reinterpreted the Balfour Declaration, 1917 and declared that Britain did not intend to build an independent Jewish state in Palestine."
I find this sentence most confusing. Some information must be missing. As it stands now, it sounds as if the Balfour Declaration, 1917 states that it supported the building of an "independent Jewish state in Palestine". Which the Balfour Declaration, 1917 most certainly does not. Does anybody know anything about these previous "White Papers"? Some clarification is needed here. Thanks. Huldra 19:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Balfours intention was to create a Jewish state on all of Palestine. It is a common mistake to use 'in Palestine' as meaning just a part of the whole. But 90 years ago the meaning was clear. This has been confirmed by Balfours grandson who presented the facts at Balfour House in London. I was in attendance at the presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.19.245 ( talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The British Mandate in Palestine required that every change in British policy towards its mandate had to be approved by the League of Nations. When the British government submitted the 1939 White Paper for approval by the overseeing authority, the League's Mandates Commission, that approval was refused. The commission declared that thew White Paper did not conform to the Mandate, which was the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In consequence, the White Paper never became binding law. This is crucial information ignored in this article. [1] Guy Montag 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It was to establish a Jewish NATIONAL HOMELAND, not a STATE. It also said "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine(over 99% of the country), or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 03:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the Council never met, the previous decision stands. Guy Montag 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In May 1939 the League of Nations had no authority worth speaking of and "internaitonal law" was largely the rule of the strongest. No one challenged the laws in a british court but had they done so a court would undoubtably have upheld the British government. Telaviv1 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
{Jonathan, I hope I got my facts right this time} On the question of the legality of the White Paper, I think that it's worth pointing out that the only one of its provisions to be enacted was the one on immigration numbers. When considering the legality of the White Paper, since only the one provision was enacted, the only non-academic part of the exercise is determining whether the immigration quota imposed was legal or not. Conor Cruise O'Brien, in The Siege, writes:
-- ZScarpia ( talk) 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have now reordered the text into 3 parts: what came before the White Paper of 1939, the White Paper itself, and, finally: the reaction to it. I have particulary expanded Part 2: White Paper itself. After all: that is what this article is about! -There is still work to do; in the 3.rd part it says both that the the plans were dropped the following year...and that they brought tensions over immigration at the end of WWII (!) -need to clarify which parts were dropped Huldra 06:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
-Also: what about Arab/Palestinian reactions? They should of course also be quoted (like the Jewish/Zionist reaction). However, I do not have any ref. about their reaction easily available; I hope somebody who does will add the information. Huldra 13:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have tightened the text up, and eliminated material either POV, erroneous, deriving from unreliable sources, or stating as an objective fact what is a partisan opinion. E.g.
'The White Paper of 1939, indirectly, made a major contribution to the Holocaust by severely restricting Jewish entry to Palestine. After the Second World War it resulted in violent conflict between the Zionist movement in Palestine and British Government.
The second part is also untrue, since it refers to actions that began to assume greater force after the White Paper, not after WW2 (Jewish terrorism against the Mandatory authorities), etc. Nishidani 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the introduction is controversial I suggest debating it before making changes. Telaviv1 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The lead section says that, in the White Paper, the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine was abandoned. However, partitioning Palestine had never been the intention. What had been the intention, after the splitting off of Transjordan, was the settling of immigrant Jews in the remaining area until they outnumbered the non-Jewish population, at which point the Mandate would have been terminated and a state (with or without any ties to Britain) created. There are a lot of disagreements over what exactly had been intended by the creation of a Jewish Homeland. It is quite clear that British Government officials including Lloyd George and Balfour (and probably Churchill) and Zionists with whom they were liaising such as Weizmann (backed by Louis Brandeis in the United States) intended the creation of Jewish-controlled state, not an entity such as some kind of protectorate. The White Paper said, "His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country." Leading members of the British Government did intend the creation of a "Jewish State" and, Balfour at least, knew that it would be resisted by the existing arab population (and a significant part of the existing Jewish population) of Palestine. As the intention was to create a state, the Declaration, which was drafted (through many versions) by those around Weizmann and was approved beforehand by the governments of countries such as the United States and France, deliberately omitted to mention the national rights of the Arabs from the list of those given, though it is often assumed that these were supposed to have been covered by the mention of civil rights. According to what I have read, the phrase Jewish National Home has an interesting provenance; it was used by the Zionist leaders to reassure and gain the support of Jews who believed the creation of a Jewish state, as such, wrong and later served the same purpose among those involved in negotiating the wording of the Declaration and its later adoption by the League of Nations. It was during the time of the first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, that specific immigration quotas for Jews were imposed, because it was known that, if limitless immigration was allowed, Arabs would demand the same "right". After the Arab Revolt and its brutal suppression, it was finally accepted that it would not be possible to impose the creation of a Jewish state other than by force of arms, a step that the British were not prepared to take and the reason why the members of the inquiry carried out after the ending of the Revolt advanced the recommendations given in the White Paper that immigration of Jews be radically reduced. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The idea of partition was suggested in the
Peel Report (1936 or 7) and the details worked out in the
Woodhead report. The British were definitely discussing partition. The stuff you have up there relates to the twenties and is irrelevant for the late thrities. Herbert Samuel left Palestine in 1925. While it was in his time that immigraiton quotas were imposed they were imposed by Churchill in his capacity as Minister for Colonial affairs (or something like that).
I agree that the Arab revolt led them to feel that the Arabs were likely to cause trouble while the Jews weren't so they worried more about the Arab response. I think the British also thought Jews had no ability to "fight" while they had an exaggerated and romantic (thanks to Lawrence of Arabia) notion of Arab fighting ability. The Jewish legion was used in the first world war for minor jobs devoid of "honour" and got no credit for its exploits. Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you for reminding me about the Peel Commission Report of July 1937, which recommended partition. So, the recommendation being accepted in principle, the partition of Palestine did become Government policy in for a short while. My apologies. The Woodhead Commission, a commision of inquiry assembled to examine how the Peel Commission recommendations could be put into practice, reached the conclusion, reported in the Palestine Partition Report of 1938, that partition could not be put into practice, though.
Although the Government quickly abandoned the intention to partition, it can be said that the White Paper was the official announcement of that. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added a mention in the Lead section that the partition idea was a recommendation of the Peel Commission Report, hoping that the change will be alright with you. Lower down, I wondered whether anything should be added to the description of the Woodhead Commission Report. What do you think? -- ZScarpia ( talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can remember Segev's verison of events is wrong. Woodhead did not reject partition it provided a suggestion for how it owuld take place. It just wasn;t practical. The original Peel proposal included removal of Arabs from Jews areas and vice versa. woodhead tried to minimize the damage which made the plan impractical. For example Jaffa was left as an enclave inside Tel-Aviv and its environs. But to remove arabs from Jaffa would have been very traumatic and they would have had to move over 100,000 people so you can see why they didn't take it on. the result is that that some streets were in "Palestine" and others in "Israel". Incidentally the same was true of the UN partition plan.
The decision not to implement it was (as far as I know) the result of a debate in parliament where Churchill ridiculed the woodhead proposals. If churchill had backed it they might have tried to implement it. It was probably worth a try.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The danger of using one source! --
ZScarpia (
talk) 11:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
your changes to the intro seem like an improvement. thanks.
Jonathan Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"The White Paper was approved by Parliament in May 1939, a few weeks after Britain agreed to Germany annexing the rest of Czechoslavakia" The British did not "agree" to this very rapid annexation, but unfortunately they could do nothing to stop it. In fact Britain prepared for war afterwards. Is it relevant here, beyond the coincidence of dates? 86.44.156.195 ( talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll correct the error. It is relevant because every expansion of German control resulted in an increase in Jews heading for Palestine. The White Paper sought to prevent this. The correspondence between the dates is also significant. Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is some text I removed, with my reasons for doing so inserted in orange.
Zero talk 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If there was a boom during the peak of Jewish migration then the White Paper text is not true. The phrasing can be changed to make it more precise. The British were meticulous about keep separate statistics for the two communities (true some areas of taxation were problematic) and the survey of Palestine Volume II page 572 gives a breakdown of income taxes for 1944-5:Jews 1.9 million palestine pounds and Arabs 409,000. The issue of income vs expendture for the two communities was frequently raised as part of the political debate of the time.
However, on reflection I think I will insert any material about the economy in the general history section above where it is liley to be less controversial. Telaviv1 ( talk) 11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well done, however in April 1944 Lord Moyne was still trying to prevent Jews from being helped to reach Palestine.
Telaviv1 (
talk) 09:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.......this term is used liberally, and given that under the San Remo Treaty Jewish immigration and settlement was to be encouraged by Britain it cannot be said to be illegal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.30.26.131 (
talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree.
There are three principle POVs involved, a Palestinian (Arab) one, a Zionist (Jewish) POV and the British. To be neutral the text must fairly represent these perspectives. I can't speak for the Arab perspective but I don't feel the Jewish perspective is sufficiently shown here. The coincidence regarding Krytallnacht is significant, though it is fair to state that it is a concidence, because it demonstrates the linkage between the possibility of creating haven in Palestine and the situation in Europe.
The White Paper was addressing the possibility of Palestine serving asa solution to the "Jewish Quesiotn" and saying it wasn't. So alternative solutions seem relevant and the fact that the "Question" itself was not addressed remains. I will check the reports when I have the time, but regardless of what is in them, the participants did not travel to Eastern Europe and an examination of causes of Jewish migraiton was not part of their remit - unlike the later anglo amiercan committee where it had a dramatic impact on the proposals.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to say that the second sentence of the article is self contradictory and confusing. Remove the phrase "Jewish national home" from the 1st half of the sentence and it will become true. thanks```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.217.219 ( talk) 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The article One Million Plan was proposed to be merged into Aliyah Bet, please discuss it at talk:Aliyah Bet#Merger. GreyShark ( dibra) 16:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White Paper of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White Paper of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The text of the first paragraph mentions the UN which did not exist in 1939. The word meanwhile implies this happened in 1939, which is impossible. I don't have a suggestion but the sentence should be removed, maybe adding an 'aftermath' type section where the source cited could be used. Geo8rge ( talk) 06:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The sentence: "Vociferously rejected by the Arabs, accepted as a basis for future negotiations by the Jews, the Peel Commission failed to stem the violence." Is undue editorializing: the use of "vociferously" is unneeded, particularly given that some Arabs did support the Peel initiative. Peel was also rejected by the Jewish Conference. The claim that it was "accepted as the basis for future negotiations" is irrelevant. The sentence should read: "The Peel Commission proposal was rejected by both the Jews and the Arabs and failed to stem the violence." Mcdruid ( talk) 02:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is very interesting. It's related to many articles around Wikipedia but I decided not to spam and to notify about it in just one place. I hope someone picks it up. -- Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If anyone's especially knowledgable in this area can they take a look at both Malcolm MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain#The Palestine White Paper to see if the relevant text needs modification. Timrollpickering 20:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On May 15, 1948, the government of the new state of Israel issued an injunction officially abolishing the White Paper.
Did it actually have the legal authority to rescind it? Timrollpickering 13:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually yes they did. The Nazis had complete control over all of France at one point, but I think De Gaulle still had grounds to object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 03:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
One of the consequence of the British White Papers was that European Jews were barred from entering Palestine. Had Churchill allowed Jewish immigration, the Holocaust may have been averted. I think it would be appropriate if this article broached this important consequence.
To return to the original quote - Neither the government of Israel not anyone else other than the UK parliament can abolish any act of that Parliament, including this White Paper. Shouldn't it say that Israel issued an injunction the effects of the White Paper would no longer be applied there Emeraude 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)?
The White Paper was a policy paper produced after an enquiry was carried out in the wake of the Arab Revolt. Of course, you cannot abolish a policy paper, only the regulations stemming from it which were in force in the Palestine area. Note that Churchill did not become Prime Minister until 1940, after the war had started, and, though being Prime Minister, wasn't a party leader, which limited his scope of action in areas like Jewish immigration in Palestine (see Churchill and the Holocaust by Martin Gilbert). Churchill, though an old-fashioned racist when it came to Indians and Arabs (he made a famous comment about Arabs being eaters of camel dung), was very pro-Semitic (presumably, since he was a racist otherwise, because he was Jewish on his mother's side) and pro-Zionist and did intervene to allow Jewish refugees to remain in Palestine who would otherwise have been deported. If unrestricted Jewish immigration had been allowed into Palestine during the war (and note that immigration was restricted, not totally stopped), the chances are that there would have been a renewal of the kinds of action taken by Arabs during the Revolt, the outcome that the White paper was trying to forestall. The question of where Jews could flee to before and during the war is one that I have never seen fully answered. It is common knowledge that Jewish immigration to the United States was severely restricted. Britain restricted Jewish immigration (at least partly because there was a fear that German agents would enter the country disguised as refugees), though reportedly, pro rata-ed, accepted more Jewish refugees than anywhere else, including the Kindertransport (which Ben Gurion opposed) children. Does anyone know what the situation was elsewhere in Europe, North and South America, the Soviet Union, Asia and India, Africa, Australia and New Zealand? Britain transported Jewish refugees intercepted on their way to Palestine who did not have entry visas, to places like Mauritius and (I am assuming) Cyprus. So that Spain would accept more Jewish refugees, the United States and Britain moved some of those already there to North Africa(?). -- ZScarpia ( talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My uncle escaped from Austria to Lithuania and when the USSR occupied Lithuania he was sent to the Gulag as an enemy alien (5 years hard labour) so that perhaps answers for the USSR. I know that Jews could not enter countries unless they had a transit visa, so you could not just get up and go, you needed visas for eveyr country on the way (peopel didn't usually fly in those days). My father required a trasnit visa for Britsian so he could go to the USA but the it was only issued after a question was aksked in parliament by Josiah Wedgewood which must have required a lto of connections. I own a limited edition copy of a the diary of a man who was sent to Mauritius (he died there) and describes how they were treated by the countries they passed through on the way out. At one point, in Hungary or Romania they (I think it was a group of a couple of hundred) were held for six months in a basketball court with one toilet and not allowed to leave (the court) becuase they lacked proper papers. Local Jews paid for their food. I think Jews were often regarded as physcially dangerous at that time. The British Empire was closed as far as I know though a few Jews made it to India. British empirial administrators regarded JEws as troublesome and criminal so they didn't want them. Shanghai was another relatively popular destination but I suppse you needed a lot fo money, connections and perhaps courage to amke it out there. Many people didn't appreciate the danger of staying. Holland and France took in quite a few but it didn't help them. I think Arthur Koestler was in camps in France and Holland where Jews were held as illegal immigrants. The British held legal Jewish migrants from Germany on the isle of Wight for a few years. Some amde it to South America - Claude Levi Strauss describes getting on a boat to Latin America amid heavy security because they were Jews. But the American countries closed their doors when they realized how many would be coming and bbecause like veryone else they bought into Nazi propganada about Jews being dangerous. My father's cousin got into Switzerland by threatening to put a curse on the border guard if he didn't admit him.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Autonomous Oblast. the Nazis suggested Madagascar Madagascar Plan. Molotov suggested the Crimea in the forties. Madagascar sounds better then Birobidjan. Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It goes like this: "Previous White Papers had reinterpreted the Balfour Declaration, 1917 and declared that Britain did not intend to build an independent Jewish state in Palestine."
I find this sentence most confusing. Some information must be missing. As it stands now, it sounds as if the Balfour Declaration, 1917 states that it supported the building of an "independent Jewish state in Palestine". Which the Balfour Declaration, 1917 most certainly does not. Does anybody know anything about these previous "White Papers"? Some clarification is needed here. Thanks. Huldra 19:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Balfours intention was to create a Jewish state on all of Palestine. It is a common mistake to use 'in Palestine' as meaning just a part of the whole. But 90 years ago the meaning was clear. This has been confirmed by Balfours grandson who presented the facts at Balfour House in London. I was in attendance at the presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.19.245 ( talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The British Mandate in Palestine required that every change in British policy towards its mandate had to be approved by the League of Nations. When the British government submitted the 1939 White Paper for approval by the overseeing authority, the League's Mandates Commission, that approval was refused. The commission declared that thew White Paper did not conform to the Mandate, which was the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In consequence, the White Paper never became binding law. This is crucial information ignored in this article. [1] Guy Montag 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It was to establish a Jewish NATIONAL HOMELAND, not a STATE. It also said "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine(over 99% of the country), or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 03:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the Council never met, the previous decision stands. Guy Montag 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In May 1939 the League of Nations had no authority worth speaking of and "internaitonal law" was largely the rule of the strongest. No one challenged the laws in a british court but had they done so a court would undoubtably have upheld the British government. Telaviv1 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
{Jonathan, I hope I got my facts right this time} On the question of the legality of the White Paper, I think that it's worth pointing out that the only one of its provisions to be enacted was the one on immigration numbers. When considering the legality of the White Paper, since only the one provision was enacted, the only non-academic part of the exercise is determining whether the immigration quota imposed was legal or not. Conor Cruise O'Brien, in The Siege, writes:
-- ZScarpia ( talk) 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have now reordered the text into 3 parts: what came before the White Paper of 1939, the White Paper itself, and, finally: the reaction to it. I have particulary expanded Part 2: White Paper itself. After all: that is what this article is about! -There is still work to do; in the 3.rd part it says both that the the plans were dropped the following year...and that they brought tensions over immigration at the end of WWII (!) -need to clarify which parts were dropped Huldra 06:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
-Also: what about Arab/Palestinian reactions? They should of course also be quoted (like the Jewish/Zionist reaction). However, I do not have any ref. about their reaction easily available; I hope somebody who does will add the information. Huldra 13:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have tightened the text up, and eliminated material either POV, erroneous, deriving from unreliable sources, or stating as an objective fact what is a partisan opinion. E.g.
'The White Paper of 1939, indirectly, made a major contribution to the Holocaust by severely restricting Jewish entry to Palestine. After the Second World War it resulted in violent conflict between the Zionist movement in Palestine and British Government.
The second part is also untrue, since it refers to actions that began to assume greater force after the White Paper, not after WW2 (Jewish terrorism against the Mandatory authorities), etc. Nishidani 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the introduction is controversial I suggest debating it before making changes. Telaviv1 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The lead section says that, in the White Paper, the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine was abandoned. However, partitioning Palestine had never been the intention. What had been the intention, after the splitting off of Transjordan, was the settling of immigrant Jews in the remaining area until they outnumbered the non-Jewish population, at which point the Mandate would have been terminated and a state (with or without any ties to Britain) created. There are a lot of disagreements over what exactly had been intended by the creation of a Jewish Homeland. It is quite clear that British Government officials including Lloyd George and Balfour (and probably Churchill) and Zionists with whom they were liaising such as Weizmann (backed by Louis Brandeis in the United States) intended the creation of Jewish-controlled state, not an entity such as some kind of protectorate. The White Paper said, "His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country." Leading members of the British Government did intend the creation of a "Jewish State" and, Balfour at least, knew that it would be resisted by the existing arab population (and a significant part of the existing Jewish population) of Palestine. As the intention was to create a state, the Declaration, which was drafted (through many versions) by those around Weizmann and was approved beforehand by the governments of countries such as the United States and France, deliberately omitted to mention the national rights of the Arabs from the list of those given, though it is often assumed that these were supposed to have been covered by the mention of civil rights. According to what I have read, the phrase Jewish National Home has an interesting provenance; it was used by the Zionist leaders to reassure and gain the support of Jews who believed the creation of a Jewish state, as such, wrong and later served the same purpose among those involved in negotiating the wording of the Declaration and its later adoption by the League of Nations. It was during the time of the first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, that specific immigration quotas for Jews were imposed, because it was known that, if limitless immigration was allowed, Arabs would demand the same "right". After the Arab Revolt and its brutal suppression, it was finally accepted that it would not be possible to impose the creation of a Jewish state other than by force of arms, a step that the British were not prepared to take and the reason why the members of the inquiry carried out after the ending of the Revolt advanced the recommendations given in the White Paper that immigration of Jews be radically reduced. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The idea of partition was suggested in the
Peel Report (1936 or 7) and the details worked out in the
Woodhead report. The British were definitely discussing partition. The stuff you have up there relates to the twenties and is irrelevant for the late thrities. Herbert Samuel left Palestine in 1925. While it was in his time that immigraiton quotas were imposed they were imposed by Churchill in his capacity as Minister for Colonial affairs (or something like that).
I agree that the Arab revolt led them to feel that the Arabs were likely to cause trouble while the Jews weren't so they worried more about the Arab response. I think the British also thought Jews had no ability to "fight" while they had an exaggerated and romantic (thanks to Lawrence of Arabia) notion of Arab fighting ability. The Jewish legion was used in the first world war for minor jobs devoid of "honour" and got no credit for its exploits. Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you for reminding me about the Peel Commission Report of July 1937, which recommended partition. So, the recommendation being accepted in principle, the partition of Palestine did become Government policy in for a short while. My apologies. The Woodhead Commission, a commision of inquiry assembled to examine how the Peel Commission recommendations could be put into practice, reached the conclusion, reported in the Palestine Partition Report of 1938, that partition could not be put into practice, though.
Although the Government quickly abandoned the intention to partition, it can be said that the White Paper was the official announcement of that. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added a mention in the Lead section that the partition idea was a recommendation of the Peel Commission Report, hoping that the change will be alright with you. Lower down, I wondered whether anything should be added to the description of the Woodhead Commission Report. What do you think? -- ZScarpia ( talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can remember Segev's verison of events is wrong. Woodhead did not reject partition it provided a suggestion for how it owuld take place. It just wasn;t practical. The original Peel proposal included removal of Arabs from Jews areas and vice versa. woodhead tried to minimize the damage which made the plan impractical. For example Jaffa was left as an enclave inside Tel-Aviv and its environs. But to remove arabs from Jaffa would have been very traumatic and they would have had to move over 100,000 people so you can see why they didn't take it on. the result is that that some streets were in "Palestine" and others in "Israel". Incidentally the same was true of the UN partition plan.
The decision not to implement it was (as far as I know) the result of a debate in parliament where Churchill ridiculed the woodhead proposals. If churchill had backed it they might have tried to implement it. It was probably worth a try.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The danger of using one source! --
ZScarpia (
talk) 11:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
your changes to the intro seem like an improvement. thanks.
Jonathan Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"The White Paper was approved by Parliament in May 1939, a few weeks after Britain agreed to Germany annexing the rest of Czechoslavakia" The British did not "agree" to this very rapid annexation, but unfortunately they could do nothing to stop it. In fact Britain prepared for war afterwards. Is it relevant here, beyond the coincidence of dates? 86.44.156.195 ( talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll correct the error. It is relevant because every expansion of German control resulted in an increase in Jews heading for Palestine. The White Paper sought to prevent this. The correspondence between the dates is also significant. Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is some text I removed, with my reasons for doing so inserted in orange.
Zero talk 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If there was a boom during the peak of Jewish migration then the White Paper text is not true. The phrasing can be changed to make it more precise. The British were meticulous about keep separate statistics for the two communities (true some areas of taxation were problematic) and the survey of Palestine Volume II page 572 gives a breakdown of income taxes for 1944-5:Jews 1.9 million palestine pounds and Arabs 409,000. The issue of income vs expendture for the two communities was frequently raised as part of the political debate of the time.
However, on reflection I think I will insert any material about the economy in the general history section above where it is liley to be less controversial. Telaviv1 ( talk) 11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well done, however in April 1944 Lord Moyne was still trying to prevent Jews from being helped to reach Palestine.
Telaviv1 (
talk) 09:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.......this term is used liberally, and given that under the San Remo Treaty Jewish immigration and settlement was to be encouraged by Britain it cannot be said to be illegal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.30.26.131 (
talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree.
There are three principle POVs involved, a Palestinian (Arab) one, a Zionist (Jewish) POV and the British. To be neutral the text must fairly represent these perspectives. I can't speak for the Arab perspective but I don't feel the Jewish perspective is sufficiently shown here. The coincidence regarding Krytallnacht is significant, though it is fair to state that it is a concidence, because it demonstrates the linkage between the possibility of creating haven in Palestine and the situation in Europe.
The White Paper was addressing the possibility of Palestine serving asa solution to the "Jewish Quesiotn" and saying it wasn't. So alternative solutions seem relevant and the fact that the "Question" itself was not addressed remains. I will check the reports when I have the time, but regardless of what is in them, the participants did not travel to Eastern Europe and an examination of causes of Jewish migraiton was not part of their remit - unlike the later anglo amiercan committee where it had a dramatic impact on the proposals.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to say that the second sentence of the article is self contradictory and confusing. Remove the phrase "Jewish national home" from the 1st half of the sentence and it will become true. thanks```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.217.219 ( talk) 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The article One Million Plan was proposed to be merged into Aliyah Bet, please discuss it at talk:Aliyah Bet#Merger. GreyShark ( dibra) 16:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White Paper of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White Paper of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The text of the first paragraph mentions the UN which did not exist in 1939. The word meanwhile implies this happened in 1939, which is impossible. I don't have a suggestion but the sentence should be removed, maybe adding an 'aftermath' type section where the source cited could be used. Geo8rge ( talk) 06:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The sentence: "Vociferously rejected by the Arabs, accepted as a basis for future negotiations by the Jews, the Peel Commission failed to stem the violence." Is undue editorializing: the use of "vociferously" is unneeded, particularly given that some Arabs did support the Peel initiative. Peel was also rejected by the Jewish Conference. The claim that it was "accepted as the basis for future negotiations" is irrelevant. The sentence should read: "The Peel Commission proposal was rejected by both the Jews and the Arabs and failed to stem the violence." Mcdruid ( talk) 02:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)