Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Land ownership image

I would like to clarify exactly what the land ownership image file in the "proposed division" section actually shows. For example, are the highlighted areas land which was 100% Jewish-owned, or just partially Jewish-owned? I assume the latter, since Jerusalem is coloured orange and no large areas within it were 100% Jewish prior to 1948. Also, is data available to produce a similar map for public-owned and Arab-owned land?

The picture originally comes from the CIA 1973 Atlas, but it's not clear where they got the data from. Perhaps from the Survey of Palestine, but that is online here and doesn't appear to include this map. Any ideas? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It would seem the info came from Village statistics 1945. An institution must have taken the detailed land data by village and turned it in to a map. If so, it would mean that (1) the highlighted areas are partially Jewish-owned land and (2) data is available to produce a similar map for public-owned and Arab-owned land. So the remaining question is, which organisation actually produced the map originally? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked in slightly less than a million places; no luck so far. Zero^talk 14:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar-looking map labeled "Jewish Land Ownership in Palestine 1947" on page 247 of Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2nd edn). Tessler does not give a source, alas. Zero^talk 10:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Having looked around for a few more hours, I am now beginning to think that rather than "ownership", this map represents "Jewish controlled zones" at the beginning of the 1947-48 civil war. See the source description in French at File:Zones juives 1dec47 + relief.GIF. Does anyone have access to the English version of that Ilan Pappe book? It may refer to the original primary source there. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

according to "State Lands and Rural Development in Mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948" By Warwick P. N. Tyler, p.77 , after 1940, because of the restriction, the JNF have purchased a considerable amount of land, which stayed registered under Arab names. Ykantor (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 16 of Tyler's book has another similar map, this time it says "registered land in Jewish possession". I don't see a source but I don't have the book to look properly. The shaded area is similar but not the same as Tessler's map. I don't think it is land in military control as that would have been much larger. Zero^talk 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found another similar map with a primary source, albeit 15 years older here (the next page has a similar map from 1944 but refers to a secondary source). The primary source for the 1929 map is the Shaw Report, and the table of contents of the Shaw Report that was kindly sent to me some time ago confirms this (although unfortunately the file does not actually include the images). I wonder whether future commissions included updated versions of the map - perhaps the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Shaw Report has two such maps. One is called "Jewish Lands and Settlements in Palestine" and the other is "Map of Palestine indicating distribution and size of Jewish Land Holdings". I have them. Zero^talk 09:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As for Stein's book, I had looked there but obviously not carefully enough. On pages 209 and 210 there are maps "Registered Land in Jewish Possession, 1930" and "Registered Land in Jewish Possession, 1944". Given that Stein is acknowledged as an expert on the subject, we can use these. At first glance I don't see a source given by Stein, but he refers to the British cadastral surveys that would have had such data. Zero^talk 10:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe I found the source. There was a sequence of maps called "Index to Villages and Settlements" produced by the mandatory government. In this list (item 9) is a mention of the Dec 31 1944 version. And here is the March 1945 version. Zero^talk 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Great work - well done! I will upload this with the appropriate copyright tags. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See File:Palestine Index to Villages and Settlements, showing Jewish-owned Land 31 March 1945.jpg. Any comments on the copyright tags? It is definitely an Orphaned work and has no declared copyright that i can see. Interestingly they published another apparently uncopyrighted work in 1957 here [1] - archive.org took the same view that that work was "Published in the US without copyright before 1989".Oncenawhile (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

More information: the report of the Anglo-American Committee says that there are five maps which were not ready at the time the report was published. They were published later and I will get them. One is a map of Jewish land holdings as of Dec 1944. A map with that description appeared in "Proposals for the Futre of Palestine" (Cmd. 7044). It looks much like the other maps unless you look too closely at the details. Those little blobs never had exactly the same shape on different maps. I'll scan it tomorrow. Zero^talk 10:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the map. It is the "Morrison-Grady plan" with Jewish-owned land indicated. Zero^talk 08:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

British reaction

Arthur Koestler's Promise and Fulfilment is being used as a reliable source in the British reaction section. Koestler wrote many fine books, but Promise and Fulfilment is not one of them. It is a propaganda work which repeatedly gives a one-sided view by omitting important, contradicting detail. As such, it should not be being used as a reliable source for anything other than what Koestler, a covert Irgun supporter, wrote. Using it as a sole source for British actions cannot but lead to a POVish statement of those. In addition the book was written decades ago, shortly after Israeli independence. Numerous better and more up-to-date sources are available.     ←   ZScarpia   21:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Incidentally there is a book by his widow that describes Koestler as being drunk most of the time during this period. I'm not sure that is relevant, though. Zero^talk 23:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Another source was added. Ykantor (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

to Aua: why did you deleted those sentences:

The Arabs appear to have used the same methods, but with poor results

The Diff page

your reason: " "using the same methods" is too much of an umbrella term encompassing all the aforementioned tactics including threatening the safety of individuals a la India. Poor and misleading phrasing."

If you do not agree with few words in the first lines, what is the justification of deleting all of my edit?

Please return most of my edit i.e the undisputed content.

We can discuss those disputed 4 words. Would you accept "using about the same methods"? Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As you can probably see, the methods employed by one side to pressure countries is not even remotely comparable to a simple bribe to an individual by the other side. When you write "using the same methods," you are drawing a false parallel. I also saw POV in what you added anyways. I think Arabs' methods deserve a mention, but to suggest comparability is POV in and of itself.

"About the same methods" => grammatically awkward, factually inaccurate.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How would you re-write those deleted sentences? Ykantor (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Though to a much lesser extent, some Arabs tried, unsuccessfully, to win votes for their cause. Examples include offering a bribe to a Russian diplomat and underlining the potential for war should the resolution pass."

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Arabs appear to have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results:

• They tried to bribe delegates
• They threatened a war should the assembly endorse partition. e.g. “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”
• They threatened the Western Powers, with an oil embargo and abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc"

One sentence is modified, i.e the one you were against it. The other sentences stay the same, since they are well supported and you have not claimed a problem there.

Besides, the previous sentences are wp:undue , giving too much weight to the Jewish pressure. Ykantor (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope; I disagree with that. There are still problems that are factual, for instance, "they tried to bribe delegates" is inaccurate. There is no evidence they tried to bribe more than one.

WP:UNDUE would be to give a Morris paragraph a whole corresponding subsection. More sources on the topic would be helpful for your cause. Otherwise, I am opposed.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Arabs appear to have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results:

• They tried to bribe a delegate
• They threatened a war should the assembly endorse partition. e.g. “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”
• They threatened the Western Powers, with an oil embargo and abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc"

The plural "delegates" is modified to "a delegate". The other sentences stay the same, since they are well supported and you have not claimed a problem there. will you accept that? Ykantor (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

promising to respect the rights of the Jewish minority

the Diff page

This added sentence of yours, should be always balanced. At the moment it it appears twice, and only the second occurrence is balanced. In my opinion the first one should be removed or be balanced. BTW the term "balanced" is an understatement. The Arab leaders other sentences, clearly show that most of the Jews would not receive rights , but would be expelled etc. Ykantor (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

dubious- Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair

The sentence "Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair" appears here. It is not correct, since even if the partition was fair, the Arabs would not accept it. The Arabs said openly, that the only accepted soution is a Unitary sate in all of Palestine. Ykantor (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like that dubious tag. It should be removed.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Will you be able to respond to the specified reasons? Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor -- not sure what that means, since the majority of Arab spokesmen/leaders vehemently insisted that any form of partition (and in fact, any manner of giving Jews sovereignty over any territory) would be inherently unjust. A few of them joked about giving the Jews one synagogue in Tel Aviv to be the "Jewish Vatican" (but they didn't really mean it)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Also of note is that the Arabs also rejected the Peel partition, which allocated about 80% of the land to an Arab state, thereby debunking claims of unfair land distribution. Sammy1857 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the so-called Arabs' point of view, it was unfair to see Jews establish themselves in their land : Palestine. Note that 95+ % of Israelis today consider unfair to see Palestinian Arabs coming back in their homes 60 years later.

There is nothing dubious in the fact they consider this as unfair. What may be dubious is that it would be unfair but that is not what the sentence says.

I add that talking about Arab point of view is no sense. There were many different Arab population and nation with different points of views even if regarding Zionism, the mainstream consensus was an opposition.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sentence should have been:"95+ % of Israelis today consider unfair do not want to see Palestinian Arabs coming back in their homes 60 years later." Ykantor (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would not they want then ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The question in the polls is usually whether people oppose or accept the return of the refugees. The reason is not discussed. In my opinion people are afraid of Arabs (in terms of personal security). I guess it is difficult to believe in, but that is how people feel. Ykantor (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. This sounds logical after the terrorism of the years 2000.

In the case of Palestinian Arabs during British Mandate, I don't remember reading something else than Palestinian Arabs consider unfair to see Jews establishing in Palestine and getting equal or higher rights. Nationalist and antisemite feelings were well established at the time. I don't think they feared Jews. You think the "unfair" is dubious. What is your mind ? What was the reason they would have argued ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As in the header, it is disputed that the "Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair". The Arabs would have rejected any form of partition e.g. 99% to the Arabs. It is not disputed that the Arabs considered the partition as unfair. Ykantor (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is, is the statement sourced? Or does the source only support the second half of the sentence? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Stick to facts

Wikipedia has massive problems when dealing with politically charged subjects. The best bet is to strictly operate as an encyclopedia should, stick to facts and leave out needless interpretations. In the section on the Jewish reaction a needless citation was made to a single revisionist historian who claimed that the Jewish acceptance of the UN partition plan was supposedly "tactical." It is absolutely ridiculous to selectively cite one historian with one idiosyncratic point of view and claim that this is fact. The reference was pure propaganda; an effort to muddle the fact that the Jews did accept the plan. It may be one thing if you could cite an historical consensus. But to cite just a single historian with a single questionable interpretation is not factual and has no business being incorporated into this article. I'm sick of seeing these articles degenerate into propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.19.122 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this snippet has been the subject of long discussions which you may want to have a look at before suggesting we remove it. You may add material from other historians who also think so, of course, if it bothers you that we only cite one. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The basis facts are that A, B, C and D expressed support for Partition and W, X, Y and Z expressed opposition to Partition. Further basis facts are that sometime later A and B, and W and X expressed different views. Whether they all at any one time expressed what they genuinely believed only God knows.

Official Catholic doctrine is that artificial contraception is wrong. You might be tempted to say,Catholics do not believe in artificial contraception. If that is the case, why does Italy have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe? Trahelliven (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

172.254.19.122 -- I have some sympathy for your concerns, and I do agree that such wording should be kept out of the lead summary at the top of the article. However: 1) Tacticality is not necessarily dishonesty, and in fact tacticality can be a perfectly respectable strategy to concede something which is of less immediate vital practical importance in order to receive something which has far more true importance. (The Arabs might be much better off now if they had employed a little more tacticality over the decades, in place of rigid inflexible maximalism and the valuing of abstract metaphysical political philosophy over immediate pragmatic gains...). 2) Even if not all Jewish leaders in late 1947 and early 1948 were tactical in their acceptance, some of them were, probably enough of them that it might have been difficult to come to a community consensus if there hadn't been a bit of tacticality involved... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This article (together with other Arab- Israel conflict articles), has a lot of built in anti Israeli propaganda. It looks like in some aspects , it is re-writing the history .(e.g. trying to thwart Arab leaders public declarations concerning driving the Jews to the sea, promising a bloodshed etc.). It is very frustrating. Ykantor (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

user Trahelliven

Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine...

1 What leaders?

2 What exactly does the source say? Trahelliven (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

1 Neither question has been answered.

2 Neither of the two quotes contains either of the two quotations contained in the deleted paragraph. Trahelliven (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Morris 2008, p. 187 ." Azzam told Kirkbride:...we will sweep them[the Jews] into the sea" Ykantor (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Just War in Religion and Politics - Page 309, books.google.co.il/books?isbn=0761860940, Jacob Neusner, ‎Bruce D. Chilton, ‎R. E. Tully - 201, "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague" Ykantor (talk)
• The Elected and the Chosen: Why American Presidents Have Supported Jews and..., books.google.co.il/books?isbn=9652295981, Denis Brian - 2012 ,p. 232, ".... the Arab delegation stormed fiom the hall and Arab leaders spoke of ”driving the Jews into the sea," and of ”the Zionist plague." Ykantor (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a manipulation of Morris.

He writes p 187 : "What was the goal fo the planned invasion ? Arab spokesman indulged in a variety of definitions". Then he gives the quote reported by Ykantor and other quotes too. But 10 lines farther, he writes : "But officially and publicly, the Arab states were more circumspect and positive. Most decribed the aim ofthe invasion as "saving" the Palestinian Arabs." He gives exemples. Again 10 lines farther, he adds : "But the actual military planning had been less ambitious. The Arab armies appear not to have had an agreed plan when they invaded Palestine. on 14 May, even of a most general kind".

WP:NPOV would require some more efforts :

1. reporting fairly what a source says when we use it.

2. and as usual, not forgetting all reliable points of view from the other sources.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1 Do not forget s:Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

2 If you wish to rely on references, they should be put in the article when an edit is first made, not when it is pointed out that the references given are inadequate.

3 Even if a couple of Arab leaders say the same thing, do not write, Arab leaders said...: write, X and Y said.

4 Perhaps Ykantor might redraft the paragraph with these comments in mind and submit it to Pluto and me for our comments. Trahelliven (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Trahelliven: "If you wish to rely on references, they should be put in the article when an edit is first made, not when it is pointed out ...". It is a pity that you do not check it. I have not inserted it into the article.
• Trahelliven: "Perhaps Ykantor might redraft the paragraph with these comments". Thank you. It might be a good idea to extend this paragraph, but at the moment, the problem is limited to a sentence that was deleted (for a good reason) and should be un deleted now (again, for a good reason). Ykantor (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

to Trahelliven: All your points are explained (In my opinion). Will you please undelete the sentence? Or accept that I will undelete it? Ykantor (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven:you deleted the ref's, and next week someone will delete the remained unsupported sentences?

The Diff page

1. You deleted these references, and as a by product you produced unsupported sentences. It could happen that someone will delete those unsupported sentences during the next week. Does the references deletion make sense?
   1. ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>
   2. ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>
   3. ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>
   4. ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>
      
2. You deleted the end of this sentence:"but rejected by Arab governments and the Arab community as a whole", which changed the meaning. The Arab league and the AHC rejections are omitted. Do you think that this omission is improving the article? Does this omission make sense?

Trahelliven: Why did you deleted a wp:rs?

The Diff page.

Your reason:"A self serving Israeli memorandum to the UNGA is not an appropriate reference for the Arab position on Jerusalem".

Your reason is incorrect.

Why did you deleted a wp:rs? Ykantor (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: note the help desk advice: the article is under discretionary sanctions. You may mention that status on the article talk page if the other editor continues deleting your quotes Ykantor (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: Please read WP:TERSE. why to complicate a simple term?

The Diff page

Your reason: "Deleted quote which refers to the Partition Plan in resolution 181(II) The text in the article says 'opposed ANY form of partition'. Presumably a reference can be found on the attitude of the Arabs as opposed to their governments.)"

It is not the first time that you try to complicate a simple term. I will appreciate it if you stop doing it. You ask for a reference for the Arab people opinion "as opposed to their governments" ! Say we hypothetically find a wp:rs who says that 80% of the Egyptians rejected the partition. What should we do next?

Before you removed the references ,it was clear that Arab governments, the Arab league and the AHC rejected the partition. Does not it means that we can justifiably and plainly say that the Arabs rejected the partition? -- ‎Ykantor

Those among the Arabs who might have supported some form of partition (such as some of the Nashashibis) had been pretty effectively marginalized and silenced by November 1947. Abdullah of Transjordan supported the idea in private discussions (always assuming that the Arab state under the partition plan would be firmly under his control), but never made a public statement of support (and his private flirtations with moderation were probably a large part of the reason why he ended up getting assassinated). If those who might have been in favor of some form of partition were afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled as traitors, then hypothetical speculative retroactive opinion polls are really quite irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, AnonMoos , I fully agree with you. It is really amazing to be asked for a reference for the Arab people opinion "as opposed to their governments" ! Ykantor (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>

I deleted this reference because the quotation comes from a document described on page 49 of the Selected Documents as Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. It is true that it contains quotes from other documents. The Memorandum is hardly RS. The quotes within it should be separately cited.

The deletion of the other quotes 1-3 are adequately explained. The deletions stay. Trahelliven (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• The wp:rs is the Lapidot book, and not the original text. Anyway, I will check it.
• I provided the Diff page in which you have not explained at all the deletion of the other sources. Is that acceptable? Ykantor (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• If you do not like a source, why will not you using a tag like , instead of deleting the source? Is not it better to comply to Wikipedia policy rather than deleting a source?
• I will appreciate it if you reply next to the question and not somewhere else, like this reply of yours. Ykantor (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Your deletions are not consistent with WP:CANTFIX Ykantor (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>

This has been adequately dealt with in the paragraph commencing Those among the Arabs. There is no RS as to what the Arab community thought as against their leaders.

ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>

It is not that the UN document is unreliable; it is just not a source for the proposition in the article. The UN document says that the Arabs opposed this partition, but the article says that The Arabs opposed any form of partition.

ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>

The reference refers to Jamal Husseini, but the article generalizes from the remark made by that one individual. Again, it is not that the reference is not a Reliable Source for the proposition in the article; it is not a source at all.

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>

Ykantor has indicated that he will check it.

Trahelliven (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52. I have checked and should not be deleted. This is a quote of an RS (Lapidot book) which id quoting an official U.N document. your claim that this U.N document is based on a Jewish agency document, is not relevant. You are right in asking to specifically say what is the source of Lapidot quote, and I will add it.
• concerning your reasons for the 3 other deleted quotes, are not acceptable. You claim that those quotes partially support the article. If so, you could have asked for more support, but not to delete the supposedly partial supports.
• This is not the first time that you are not replying to my other points.
• Will you cooperate a further discussion in WP:DRN ? Ykantor (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52

We need to take this one step at a time.

The quote contains the following words:-

The [Partition Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly.

I could not find the words in the General Assembly document of 16 February 1949 or on page 52 of the Lapidot book. Can you please tell me from where they come? Trahelliven (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• You deleted all those sentences at once, against the WP:CANTFIX rule. your deletion reason is really strange:the attitude of the Arabs as opposed to their governments, and no one would accept it. You did not bother to explain the other 3 deletions, but later claimed that you explained it !. Each time your claim is proven to be wrong, you start with all sort of supposedly procedural (e.g the text is based on something else). You do not reply to the relevant points and each time you raise new strange claim. This is frustrating.
• What is your present claim purpose? You mean that a wp:rs is not allowed to write its opion? every word shoukd be quoted from another source? Is that what uo mean?
• yours:"We need to take this one step at a time.". I do not share the desire for endless discussions.
• I am very frustrated with those strange claims. I open a wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

I Before agreeing to taking part in a wp:drn, I wish to say three things:-

1 Because you are not a native speaker of English, you will need assistance in drafting any points you wish to make.

2 Do not use abusive language or accuse me of bad faith, just because you do not understand what I have said.

3 I shall try to stop talking like a lawyer. Trahelliven (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

Perhaps we might start with my question about the Lapidot quote - ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52

The quote contains the following words:-

The [Partition Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly.

I could not find the words in the First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine dated 16 September 1948[2] or on page 52 of the Lapidot book.

Please tell me from where they come? Trahelliven (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reports of pressure against the Plan

1 Quotation 3 from Morris supports the proposition that one Arab offered a bribe, namely Wasif Kamal, an AHC official.

2 Quotation 4 from Morris supports the proposition that Jamal Husseini promised that The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East.

3 Quotation 4 from Morris does not mention anything about The Arabs threatening the 1 million Jews who were living in the Moslem countries[qt 4].

I propose to alter the section to reflect points 1 and 2. I shall now delete the last point in the section of the article about the threatening of I million Jews. Trahelliven (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to have a look at the source, it's almost invariably the case that two pairs of eyes see better than one. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd separate out the new material: on one side we have corruption, covert attempts to influence votes by threatening or bribing delegates or delegations; on the other we have threats or warnings (however atrocious) about how Arab countries will react if the partition resolution is passed.     ←   ZScarpia   22:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the section so that the it correctly reflects the quotes. Having said that, I think it is inappropriate to have all these quotes by Benny Morris. Trahelliven (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: It is not the first time that you are trying to deal with little details which thwart the meaning of the phrase.

1. "According to Benny Morris". You added these words, although it is used when the content is disputed among the sources,but you do not present another version. The reader might understand that this opinion is not accepted by most of the sources.
2. "Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, tried to bribe a delegate.". You ignore the source text, which says "for example". Please read the quote and re-write it without a distortion.
3. "They threatened a war should the assembly endorse partition. e.g.". There were a lot of Arab leaders threats, but you deleted this generalizing sentence and left one threat example only, so the reader may understand that there was one threat only.
4. "The Arabs threatened the 1 million Jews who were living in the Moslem countries". You inflated the sentence by secondary details so the reader may understand that there was one threat only.

• I feel like being in an attrition war, and have to waste time in order to point out all yours baseless small modifications. You could have looked for another wp:rs, but instead you achanging the meaning of this wp:rs. What for? Ykantor (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

According to Benny Morris. These words may be deleted.

Wasif Kamal - Same as what? The quote does not make it clear of what it is an example. Does the preceding sentence to the quote say that there were attempts to bribe officials? If so, please add them

Who apart from Muhammad Hussein Heykal mentioned threats to, or threatened, 1 million Jewish lives? Trahelliven (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section misrepresents or synthesises Morris.
On page 61 Morris wrote: "The Arabs had failed to understand the tremendous impact of the Holocaust on the international community—and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results." He then goes onto give one example, an attempt at bribery. He continues: "But the Arabs’ main tactic, amounting to blackmail, was the promise or threat of war should the assembly endorse partition." The way that reads to me is that, like the Zionists, the Arab side used tactics such as bribery but that their main tactic was the promise or threat of war. So, the threats listed further on are not being compared to those issued by the Zionists. Morris concludes by mentioning two other Arab threats, an oil embargo and realignment with the Soviet Union, which are also listed in the article. The article commences, making the assumption that Morris's 'selfsame tacticts' are bribery and issuing threats, "According to Benny Morris, the Arabs appear to have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results," then goes on to mention the attempt at bribery and various threats. This gives the impression that Morris made an equivalence between the threats made by the Arabs and the tactics used by the Zionists. Morris did not do that, however, so the source has been misrepresented. The article then goes on to mention other Arab threats. Those are taken from elsewhere in the book. They also have been presented in such a way as to give the impression that Morris was drawing an equivalence between them and the types of threat issued covertly by the Zionists in an attempt to subvert individual countries' votes, something he clearly did not do, so again the source has been misrepresented.
    ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ZScarpia: to my knowledge, we have to follow an wp:rs (Morris) unless, there is a different wp:rs opinion. Because of copyright rules , I have modified Morris text such as:

1. Morris: "and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results". Mine:"The Arabs appear to have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results:". you are welcome if you can improve my sentence similarity to Morris original sentence. However, Traherleven deleted it. How come he can delete a well supported sentence just because he does not like it?
2. Morris:"...have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results. Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, for example, offered one delegate—perhaps the Russian—a “huge, huge sum of money to vote for the Arabs”. mine:" ...have used the bribing and threatening too, but with poor results:..They tried to bribe a delegate". Again, one may improve the similarity but not changing it by presenting it as a single event, and not as an example for their tactics.

• yours:"The article then goes on to mention other Arab threats. Those are taken from elsewhere in the book. They also have been presented in such a way as to give the impression that Morris was drawing an equivalence between them and...". Ok, you are right. it can be split to a new phrase.
• Generally, there are more sources who mentioned Arab side threats, and it is easy to find. However, I am frustrated by Traherleven methods of thwarting the [wp:rs]] text , while he does not bother to cite a different view (if there is such a view). So, If I find out more sources that complement Morris text, he might thwart them as well. I have tried the wp:drn few times, but none of them was decided (they expired as unsolved). So Traherleven can delete and thwart whatever he wish to, as we have here a "wild west" situation. Ykantor (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

I have no doubt that the Arabs/Arab leaders/Arab states/Arab governments did and said the things you mention. My objection is that on this and other occasions, the sources cited or the quotations given do not support what you actually write.

The quotation about Wasif Kamal does not tell us what is meant by the selfsame methods Does it mean just bribery or does it mean something wider than that?

In the reference to the possible oil embargo, I altered They to The Arab states. In the context of the section, they refers back to the Arabs but in the quotation, it refers back to the Arab states.

I have no doubt that at least one other Arab out of so many millions made the same threat as Muhammad Hussein Heykal, but the quotation refers only to the threat made by him. Trahelliven (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

On reflection, I think the phrase According to Benny Morris should remain. It is impossible in most cases to disprove that someone said something. Theoretically the sort of evidence that might suggest that the remark was not made might be as follows:-

1 It is not the sort of thing he would normally say.

2 At all relevant times, he was in solitary confinement or had laryngitis.

The best evidence would be that I was with him day and night and he never said it. In fairness, either you or Benny Morris should particularise when and where the remark was made, to whom it was made and the circumstances in which it was made. If you can produce RS to those points, I shall agree to the removal of the phrase According to. Trahelliven (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: We have to obey the rules. We are supposed to write based on wp:rs and not our opinions. At the moment we have one RS only (Morris), so we have to write his view, which is rather clear. Why will not you look for other RS which may be closer to your view? Ykantor (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

The very nature of the lack of information on the circumstances in which the remarks were said to be have been made makes it impossible for anyone to look for evidence either way. For all Benny Morris tells us, the remarks might have been made to a friend over coffee. In these circumstances, they would have no significance. According to Benny Morris, should stay. Trahelliven (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia rules and we should stick with them, even if we do not like the RS. Unless you you find another RS which support your view, The article text is based on Morris view. Please remove the according to.... Ykantor (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

I have no view whether the remarks were made or not. It would have been helpful if Benny Morris had complied with Wikipedia rules and provided RS himself.

It is too late for me to remove the according to.... ; you already have done so (Revision as of 20:11, 15 October 2013). Trahelliven (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

In commenting on a new quote (8), you have written the following:-

Nuri al-Said repeated it later and warned that unless Israel would behave itself, events might take place concerning the Iraqi Jews[qt 8.

I do not understand where you got the preface to the warning, unless Israel would behave itself. Israel did not come into existence until the following year, and indeed the name of the proposed Jewish state had not even been agreed. The word Israel is not even mentioned in quote 8. I reserve the right to make further comments on quote 8. Trahelliven (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuri Said avoided the term Israel and used the terms "Tel aviv" or "Jews" instead. I guess that the term "Israel" is well known nowadays and may avoid confusion. However , I have no problem if you change the name. Concerning the "behave itself", it is a short for "Jews could give a guarantee of their good faith when they talk of their desire for peace, by accepting the return of the refugees to their homes, as well as by agreeing to the internationalisation of Jerusalem. The Prime Minister was not optimistic on that score, and expressed the opinion that American pressure at Tel Aviv would constitute the only effective guarantee that the Jews would respect their undertakings.". Please feel free to change it, if you have better concised expression. Ykantor (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

I have no intention of changing anything: behave itself is not an accurate abbreviation of anything H.E. Nuri es Said said at the meeting held at Baghdad, on 19 February 1949. I have just noticed that the meeting was held more than a year after the resolution of 29 November 1947. This section of the article deals with events before the adoption of the resolution. For these two reasons, I shall delete quote 8 in its entirety and delete from the article itself any reference to the meeting of 19 February 1949. Trahelliven (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

1 For reasons that are not clear, it now appears unlikely that any volunteer will come forward to assist us.

2 For the reasons given above, namely the vagueness of the circumstances in which the quotations were allegedly made, I intend to delete quotations from Benny Morris p. 61 (Quote 3) and p. 187 (Quote 9).

3 I intend to delete Quote 6, 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized as repetitious of part of Quote 4.

4 I shall delete Malka Hillel Shulewitz (Quote 7) as not not a Reliable Source [3], and as both too vague and speculative (Quote 7). Trahelliven (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: note the help desk advice: the article is under discretionary sanctions. You may mention that status on the article talk page if the other editor continues deleting your quotes Ykantor (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Things that it was said might happen are being presented as 'threats', which is a misrepresentation or editor-interpretation. The introductory line saying, "The Arab states threatened that," should be changed or removed or most of the items listed underneath put in a separate paragraph (or, better, a section about the arguments opposing partition presented).
In case it helps, Morris's source for the statement about Wasif Kamal and the attempted bribe is document S25-3569 from the Central Zionist Archive in Jerusalem, which is a "summary of tapped Palestinian conversations in New York, 26 November 1947." Presumably the object of the attempted bribery wasn't mentioned in the conversation which is why there is speculation that he was a Russian.
Bribery is mentioned on page 54: "Pecuniary considerations apparently affected the votes of one or two Latin American ambassadors (though documentation in this regard is hard to find). According to reports, one Latin American delegation voted for partition after receiving seventy-five thousand dollars; another, perhaps Costa Rica, turned down a forty-five-thousand-dollar bribe but nonetheless voted for partition. More telling, apparently, were promises and threats directed at individual governments by American Jewish businessmen and politicians. Apparently prominent in this lobbying effort was Samuel Zemurray, head of the United Fruit Corporation, which had large plantations in the Car-ribean."
Page 55: "By contrast, Liberia was subjected to the stick. Both former US secretary of state Edward Stettinius, who headed an American-Liberian development company, and Harvey Firestone, whose Firestone Rubber Company owned plantations in Liberia and imported rubber, Liberia’s main (or only) export, were mobilized to threaten a boycott unless Liberia voted for partition. Jan Smuts, prime minister and foreign minister of South Africa, was also re-cruited to pressure Monrovia. Liberia duly switched from abstention to “aye.”"
Pages 59 to 61 describe how heavy lobbying by the Americans in favour of partition suddenly started in the last couple of days before the vote, which is probably worth mentioning in the article.
    ←   ZScarpia   04:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC) CZA S25-3569

• yours Things that it was said might happen are being presented as 'threats.
  • The word threat appears 3 time at Morris 2008 p. 61 (which is one of the sources).
  • a Morris quote:“The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East,” promised Jamal Husseini. . I guess it is a threat, although the word "threat" is not used. What is your opinion?
• Concerning your examples of pro Jewish pressure: It is already in the article. There was a problem since the article elaborated concerning Jewish side pressure, but had not mentioned the Arab side pressure. Hence I have added those sentences. Please note, that there is an "undue" problem, since the Jewish side pressure is elaborated while the Arab side pressure is rather condensed. Ykantor (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

Have you got any comment on ZScarpia's story on how Morris apparently found out about the remark 'made' by Wasif Kamal? If Morris were asked, in an English or American court, to tell that story as proof that Wasif Kamal made the remark, the evidence would be rejected as being a flagrant breach of the hearsay rule. I see no reason why the rule should not apply here. I hope that the other remarks that Morris quotes do not have such a fascinating history. Trahelliven (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Historians use a variety of sources. Some sources (like intelligence reports) do not pass the hearsay rule. e.g The Ultra British code breaking operation in Bletchley Park. Those reports are used extensively by WW2 historians. Just imagine what would have happened to Wikipedia articles if the use of those reports is forbidden. I guess that Morris usage of a Zionist intelligence is similar.
• We should avoid wp:or such as opposing an interpretation of an accepted wp:rs like Morris. On the contrary: Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. If Morris interpretation is wrong in your opinion, you have to find a wp:rs that support your view,as said Jimbo Wales:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
• Moreover, once you have such an opposing RS, you can not delete Morris interpretation but rather when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance
• As for usage of "dirty" methods (e.g. tapping, code breaking,bribing, threatening) , they are unfortunately used by all nations. On the contrary, it was very unusual when the U.S disbanded it's tapping and code breaking service on 1929 , because "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail.". Ykantor (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

In my edit of 05:38, 16 October 2013, I wrote the following, In fairness, either you or Benny Morris should particularise when and where the remark was made, to whom it was made and the circumstances in which it was made. If Morris gives at least some of those particulars, it would be helpful to edit the article to include them. This applies to any other quotes of Morris. Trahelliven (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you are not acting according to Wikipedia policy. Please ask the help desk or the RS noticeboard. I hope that they will be able to convince you. Ykantor (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Resuming discussion from DRN page

I agree that my edit of 16 June 2013 was not satisfactory. Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] . This phrase, however, is too wide. It implies that every possible proposal was made, and then rejected.

I do not like the use of the phrase, the Arabs opposed, when they really mean Arab leaders opposed or Arab governments opposed (regardless of what the sources say). The Arab community, as against their leaders and governments, was not consulted. Trahelliven (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we return to the 14 June version, but only as the basis for discussion. We should include the first two sentences in the discussion:-

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

I have three problems with these two sentences:-

1 The absolute statement was accepted by the Jewish Agency doe not reflect the reservations in the first sentence in the section - Reactions: Jewish reaction.

2 Regardless of what the sources say, how do we know any acceptance was sincere?

3 While we can say the Arab leaders rejected this Plan, how do we know that they would reject every other possible plan. Trahelliven (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with comment 1 :

Menahem Begin who was an important Jewish Leader, rejected the Partition Plan (see Menachem Begin, The Revolt',, 1978, p. 412.)

I agree with comment 2 :

There are controversies about the fact that Ben Gurion agreed with the Plan but as a base for expansion. So in fact, he would have rejected the idea to share anything. The Bilmore program of 1942 asked also the complete Palestine to become Israel. (This needs to be sourced.)

I agree with comment 3 :

Abdullah I of Jordan, who was maybe the most important Arab leader, was very satisfied of the Partition Plan even if he was sometimes ambigous on the question (see Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, 2003, chapter 4.)

All this is complex. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- Prominent Arab leaders and spokesmen were emphatic in rejecting any form of Jewish national sovereignty, and any partition plan that involved Jewish national sovereignty would have been pretty sure to be rejected. Any Arabs who might have been willing to consider publicly supporting partition had already been effectively marginalized and silenced by November 1947...

Pluto2012 -- Begin was part of the Irgun/Revisionist trend, which was a minority in the Jewish leadership in 1947-1948, and conspicuously lost out whenever it tried to directly challenge the predominant Palmach/Laborite faction... And as discussed recently on this page, Abdullah of Transjordan privately supported the plan if and only if it would mean that Transjordan had effective control of the Arab state under the partition plan. However even Abdullah was not willing to speak out publicly in support of the partition, and his private flirtations with moderation were probably part of why he was assassinated... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. You should explain this to Ykantor.

So Yishuv as a whole didn't approve the plan. Revisionnists rejected this. BG never intended to respect it.

-> Jewish leaders welcomed it but never approved it.

Arab leaders were officialy against the Partition and wanted an unitary Palestine but not all of them. Abdullah also welcomed the plan to seize the Arab side.

-> Arab leaders didn't reject it as a whole.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- some Jewish leaders and factions were firmly opposed to the plan in 1947, while others supported conveying an official acceptance of the plan. The die-hard irreconcilable opponents were in a minority while the supporters of official acceptance were in the majority, as partly determined by democratic elections and partly by who had effective command over the largest and strongest fighting forces (which came to pretty much the same thing in 1947-1948). The majority group had control over all internationally-relevant community institutions, and therefore they were the ones who were listened to by the United Nations etc. Normally, the fact that a minority faction in some country's parliament rejects a treaty is not taken as an indication that the country as a whole rejects the treaty, and I don't see why the same principle shouldn't also apply here...

As for the Arabs, Abdullah of Transjordan supported the plan privately if and only if it could be made to serve as a personal aggrandizing land-grab for himself (but was not willing to say so out loud publicly), while the Moscow-subservient Communist faction supported it because they slavishly followed all of Comrade Stalin's positions without exception. All other prominent Arab personalities and spokesmen rejected the 1947 plan publicly... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Ben Gurion approval on the basis of an expansion.

The Jewish leaders welcomed it and the Arab leaders didn't reject it as a whole.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're saying, but the Panama canal treaty received extremely vocal opposition in the United States, including by some in the U.S. Senate, yet the United States is considered to have ratified it. Not sure why the same wouldn't apply to the Jewish Agency, despite the opposition of a minority, including Begin. As for Arab acceptance of the partition plan, if all you have to point to is Abdullah of Transjordan willing to consider using the plan as the basis of a personal land-grab (but not willing to support the plan in public) and a small Communist faction chanting in unison Stalin's pronouncements, then that's really not too impressive. The official statements of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League were unanimously opposed to the partition plan, as far as I understand the matter... AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Some sources question whether Ben-Gurion's indicated acceptance extended beyond the principle of partition, whether he had any intention of implementing parts of the plan such as economic union and the depth of his commitment to respecting the specified borders. Come the end of the mandate he immediately and unilaterally declared the creation of Israel, ignoring the timetables and mechanisms inherent in it. In any case, the plan did not depend on or require indications of acceptance by the two sides; nor was the resolution containing the plan a binding one.     ←   ZScarpia   12:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ZScarpia -- As has been gone over in excruciating detail multiple times in the past on this discussion page, in the very early days of the establishment of the state of Israel, UNGA resolution 181 was appealed to by Israeli leaders/spokesmen in various contexts because it was then one of the few internationally-approved legal documents supporting the creation of a Jewish state. HOWEVER, it was and is extremely obvious that the various detailed provisions of the proposed agreement could only be implemented if BOTH sides agreed to it -- and an assumption that the Arabs should somehow benefit from the terms of an agreement at the very same that moment they were scorning and spurning and trompling on it, and violating its provisions about respect for holy places of all religions, borders open for trade, etc., is ridiculous in the extreme... AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"As has been gone over in excruciating detail multiple times in the past ... ." So what? How does that relate to anything I wrote? "However, it was and is extremely obvious ... ." Yes, it is obvious. Why did you think you needed to explain it to me? The question asked was about Ben-Gurion's intentions at the time the partition resolution was passed, not about whether the plan could or should have been implemented in the face of Arab opposition.     ←   ZScarpia   10:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In your remarks which I replied to, you mentioned that in May 1948 (not November 1947), Israel "ignor[ed] the timetables and mechanisms inherent in" the UN partition plan, implying that some other outcome could be reasonable or expected or legally-required given the situation in May 1948. Unfortunately, this was an idée fixe of several past participants in discussions here, which ended up generating hundreds of thousands of bytes in the archives of this page without ever resulting in any meaningful improvement in article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The point of my comment was to act as a reminder that the plan contained more than a statement that Palestine should be divided and a list of borders. It contains no judgement about whether the actions of the Israelis were justified or 'legal'. Anything you read into it that way is a product of the inside of your own head. Having said that, if by questioning whether "some other outcome could be reasonable" you meant that the Israelis had no choice but to act exactly as they did, I think that's plain silly.     ←   ZScarpia   22:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Some time between the passing of the partition resolution and the end of the mandate, Ben-Gurion is supposed to have announced at a meeting that the partition plan was dead and therefore the Jewish Agency would no longer feel bound by its terms, which is perhaps of relevance to this article.     ←   ZScarpia   14:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In the 14 May 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the location of the new state is described by Ben-Gurion as in Eretz-Israel rather than by reference to the boundaries proposed in the resolution of 29 November 1947. Trahelliven (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

By May 1948, a lot of water had flowed under the bridge since November 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed yes! By staking a claim over the area of the yet to be ended British Mandate, Ben-Gurion provided a justification for the intervention by the Arab League. Trahelliven (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- as has been gone over in great detail in the archives to this article talk page, the fact that Israel didn't stick to the Nov. 1947 plan boundaries in May 1948 is a non-event, since the boundaries could have had binding force only if both sides had agreed to the plan, and also because the Nov. 1947 plan boundaries were completely militarily indefensible (in part very deliberately), so that if the Jews had never crossed the 1947 plan lines, then in all probability they would have been "thrown into the sea" in fairly short order. Furthermore, the idea that the Arabs should somehow benefit from the terms of an agreement at the very same that moment they were scorning and spurning and trompling on it, and violating its provisions about respect for holy places of all religions, borders open for trade, etc., is completely ludicrous.

In any case, the Arabs didn't need going beyond the 1947 plan lines to provide a casus belli, since the great majority of them regarded any recognition of Jewish national sovereignty and/or any claim of Jewish national sovereignty to be a perfectly adequate casus belli in itself. The truth is that Israel going beyond the 1947 partition plan lines was considered important by some diplomatic types from non-Middle-East countries, but the Arabs were unalterably committed to war whether or not Israel crossed the 1947 plan lines, and hardly any strong Israel supporters stopped supporting Israel just because it went beyond the 1947 plan lines. AnonMoos (talk)

AnonMoos is in effect saying that acceptance of the plan by the Jewish leaders was tactical only. They knew at all times that the Arabs would not agree to it and therefore they would no have to accept it either. −

Even as a matter of strict terminology, you cannot say that Israel accepted the partition lines. The wording of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 and the events that had already taken place, had made it clear that the Jewish leadership was leaving open its options on the boundaries of the new state even before Israel came into existence.

On another matter, is anyone going to open up the debate on my deletions of the four quotations of Ykantor? Trahelliven (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you think your first conclusion follows -- there's nothing logically incompatible between being a sincere partition-plan supporter in November 1947, but also recognizing by May 1948 that the plan is not going to be implemented, and that practical realities demand not being restricted in one's actions by the now purely theoretical plan. And look at the section above for an explanation as to why tacticality is not the same as dishonesty.

For Israel to keep within the theoretical boundaries of the unimplemented partition plan in May 1948 would have been to fight with one hand behind its back, and it's not clear why anybody should have expected Israel to do that when national survival was vulnerable. AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody says they were wrong or should have behaved differently.

But you agree : they didn't accept the Partition. They welcomed the UN Resolution. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor hsd just added a quotation to the article in support of the following statement:-

The Arabs opposed any form of partition[qt 4]. Do others agree with me that the quotation does not support the statement? Trahelliven (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it does not. I don't even understand why he added this. Many other quotes that he provided support his wordings much more. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote 2 as of 6 November 2013

Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 47. Retrieved 13 July 2013. "The Jews were to get 62 percent of Palestine (most of it desert), consisting of the Negev". I think the close bracket after desert should go at the end of the whole sentence after the Negev Trahelliven (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Irgun/Revisionist opposition to partition.

Gershom Gorenberg - "Unmaking of Israel" (2011). Chapter II, 'Remember the Altalena':

"The Irgun would grandiosely give itself sole credit for driving the British from Palestine. But it rejected the UN partition plan. Irgun leaders referred to the government that the Jewish Agency was preparing to establish as a treasonous “government of partition.” The organization’s overseas headquarters in Paris proposed setting up a rival government. Begin decided against trying to seize power, because it would lead to both a bloody civil war and “the defeat of the Irgun.” He did order the Paris HQ to raise a division of volunteers in Europe, arm it, and send it to Palestine aboard a war-surplus American landing ship that the Irgun had bought and renamed the Altalena. In Begin’s imagination, the Irgun force would land on May 15, just after the British left, and conquer the parts of Palestine that partition assigned to an Arab state. From all of Europe, though, the Paris activists managed to recruit only a hundred untrained would-be soldiers. Their arms-buying efforts also failed. The ship did not sail."

    ←   ZScarpia   21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's nice -- The Irgun or revisionist tendency opposition to partition was important in some ways, but the Irgun/revisionists were outvoted in Jewish community representative institutions, and outgunned when it came to the number of fighters under their control and access to heavy weapons. All this is another way of saying that the revisionist tendency was a 'MINORITY' in the Yishuv or Palestine Jewish community of 1947-1948. As stated above, whenever the Irgun/revisionist tendency tried to directly challenge the majority Laborite/Palmach tendency, they lost. In any case, the United Nations was listening to the Jewish Agency (in which the Irgun/revisionists were a minority faction)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't think that anyone was under the illusion that the Irgun in particular or the Revisionists in general represented anything but a minority.

... the Jewish Agency (in which the Irgun/revisionists were a minority faction). The Jewish Agency wasn't a directly elected body and its ties were with the World Zionist Organization, which the Revisionists' New Zionist Organization was outside from 1935 to 1946. I should think that, in 1947, the Irgun had no representation within the Jewish Agency at all and other Revisionists either zero or a minuscule amount. Presumably there were Revisionist members of the Assembly of Representatives at that stage, but, as far as I'm aware, that body didn't control the Jewish Agency.     ←   ZScarpia   17:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Explicit mention of the fact that UN General Assembly Resolutions are not Legal Instruments

There needs to be a sentence or two somewhere near the beginning of the article explaining the fact that UN General Assembly Resolutions such as this one are NOT legally binding instruments...in other words there was no legal obligation for Palestine to adhere to this resolution and they had complete authority to reject it without violating any International agreements. This an extremely important facet of the Question of Palestine and the question of whether or not Israel had a legal right to declare an Israeli state within the border of Mandatory Palestine. Excimer3.141597 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't, but should, mention that the resolution was a non-binging non-binding one.     ←   ZScarpia   13:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC) (spelling mistake corrected - 14:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC))

Excimer3 -- What do you mean by "Palestine" in that context? The British?

ZScarpia -- Do you mean "binding"? ... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Spelling mistake corrected.     ←   ZScarpia   14:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Trahelliven: You continue to delete against Wikipedia rules. please restore

Trahelliven: You continue to delete against Wikipedia rules. please restore.

You have been told few times that it is against the rules to delete a support for a sentence. You have been advised few times to verify it with the wp:help desk, but apparently you have not consulted with them and continue to ignore the rules. Please restore the deleted sources. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Note wp:vandal :"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ...

Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block....

any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism"

You can not claim for "good faith" editing, because you are ignoring the warnings and do not bother to verify it. Ykantor (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

1 As far as I am aware you are the only editor who has accused me of vandalism.

2 You have accused me of a number of acts of vandalism in relation to this article.

3 Perhaps you might indicate which you wish to talk about first. Trahelliven (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Lehi and Nazi collaboration

The article on Lehi has this source: proposed forming an alliance in World War II with Nazi Germany. ( Sasson Sofer. Zionism and the Foundations of Israeli Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press, 2007 Pp. 254"). Can someone verify the material is sourcable there? Google Books doesn't have these pages. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are following up on this edit[4] Then as I noted in my comment, on this article its completely undue. But if you want to make your case please do. Though keep in mind that inline with NPOV, this article Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world#Mandatory Palestine offers far bigger volume and due info compared to it.--PLNR (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sofer's book has it at the page indicated. But I think it is too peripheral for this article. Zero^talk 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think too that the the attempts of collaboration between Lehi and the Nazis are not relevant for this article, whereas they are proven. Indeed, this collaboration (dating back the beginning of WWI) had no impact on the Partition Plan and the vote of 1947. I don't have any mind any article or scholar book where this collaboration would be mentionned in the context of the Partition Plan.

So, policy WP:Undue would apply here.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1937 Peel Commission reaction

We have "The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and Ben Gurion had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation." It is sourced to good sources but it is quite misleading. Read the actual text of the Zionist Congress resolution. Do you see any approval, equivocal or not, in there? Is there anything unclear about "The Congress declares that the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable."? Zero^talk 00:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can't comment on the text you reference, since I don't know if its the document discussed in the source, but I have recently read about this. It is my understanding that both 'Zionist Organization' and 'Jewish Agency' adopted resolutions in favor of Partition but rejecting the details of the Peel plan(which iirc wasn't a full plan but more of a collection of principle). --PLNR (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

They adopted resolutions in favor of establishment of a Jewish state. More than that needs a pretty good reference. They knew that they wouldn't get more than a small part of Palestine in a partition, since they were only a small part of the population. Some, like Ben-Gurion, would have accepted partition as a starting point with the long term aim of taking more (as he made very clear). Zero^talk 13:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the Congress decided to reject the specific borders recommended by the Peel Commission but empowered its executive to negotiate a more favorable plan for a Jewish State in Palestine."jewish virtual library
• ref name="Cesarani1996p231"> cite book|author=David Cesarani|title=The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1LeGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA231%7Cdate=19 September 1996|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-74421-3|pages=231–|quote="The struggle at Zurich was long and bitter. Weizmann’s argument won some support among American Zionists, resulting in a serious split in the ZOA and Hadassah delegations. Silver, Wise, Szold and their supporters (including Louis Brandeis back in the United States) opposed Weizmann and the division of the Holy Land, while those delegates, including Louis Lipsky, who had supported Wcizmann in the past continued to do so. Finally, the Zionist Congress passed a resolution authorizing the Zionist Executive to negotiate with the British in the hope of winning better boundaries for the proposed Jewish state. The resolution, however, prohibited the Executive from agreeing to any particular proposal without first getting the approval of another World Zionist Congress" Ykantor (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Without doubts" - 1RR violation

Ykantor,

Even if Morris says so, stating that something is "without doubts" sounds very pov. More it doesn't bring anything to the article and the topic. If this was an important information we would write "According to Benny Morris, there is no doubt that..." but that is not important. This should therefore be removed because the style is not good and because the information is without interest.

PLNR already posted on the talk page a message for you about this issue (and others) yesterday. Would you mind answering him too ?

Nb: by the way, you reverted two times to your version and therefore do not comply with 1RR whereas you are fully aware of that rule now.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

UNSCOP affair

Hi, Ykantor concerning your recent addition. Thanks for providing a source, however, as I noted in my edit summary there are still several issues with it.

1. It is by far the single most covered\details event in this whole article by that point. (What does it matter where the passengers refused to disembark or where they did?!)
2. The language is very vague/strong, without any context as to what it has "Without doubt..heavily influenced"? i.e. the committee attitude toward British enforcement of White Paper of 1939? the details of the land\population partitions? or simply reinforced their working assumption that both groups has intense nationalist aspirations and unlikely to compromise, which led to the conclusion that Partition is the only solution?
3. Considering the above, the location of the paragraph(singled out in the UNSCOP section) reinforce bias that this was the single most major influence on UNSCOP. While it seem to have some contributing factor, we will need far more sources to establish that some "bad press" is was a larger factor then precedent built by several decades of failed committees unrest and violence which are covered in background. -- otherwise it should be moved to background.
4. Lastly the original part is still unsourced.(very minor concern)--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that these sentences may be concised. However, it is important according to Morris "without doubt UNSCOP members were heavily influenced by the SS Exodus" as committee members watched it in Haifa harbor, and followed the affair later.

*What does it matter where the passengers refused to disembark or where they did? because it underlines their desire to immigrate to Palestine.

*The language is very vague/strong? this specific sentence is quoting Morris. If Morris view is opposed by other RS, would you mind to provide one? Ykantor (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I try to link it with the section that covers the Jewish attempt to undermined the British immigration policy. I also had similar objections to the above concerning the three paragraphs(and bullet points?!) concerning the Anglo-American committee. In my recent two edits [5] [6] I tried to summarize the section I am familiar with.--PLNR (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

1918 population

The text says "A British census of 1918 estimated 700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews." and cites Peter Mansfield, "The Arabs", 1992, pp. 172–175. I can't access that source at the moment, but regardless of what it says there was no British census in 1918. The only censuses conducted under British control were in 1922 and 1931. There are tons of good sources verifying that, including the reports of those censuses. On the other hand, the British were forever estimating the population and may well have done so in 1918. The 1922 census report mentions a 1920 estimate: 521,400 Muslims, 66,600 Christians and 66,600 Jews. That suggests 700,000 Arabs in 1918 is unlikely, but the whole issue is complicated by the fact that the French occupied much of northern Palestine at the time. I propose to replace the sentence by the 1922 census findings, anyone object? Zero^talk 23:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are definitely right. Ykantor (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like it suppose to be "estimated 700,000 population, of whom 56,000 Jews". The 1920 League of Nations Report in the Demographics of Palestine#British control 1918–1948 section. Says that "There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people .. the Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000."--PLNR (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I object. There is a valid source out there, you are trying to replace, with a second hand source. Also you divided the numbers Christians are also Arabics so that is roughly 600,000 Arabics. You will must learn some patience. :Zero0000, I know you believe what you wrote and applaud you finding later works. But I know for a Fact, Britain did much between 1917 and 1920. Releasing a book with Census info in 1920. I can find this book for the article on the condition it be included as a source. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing your evidence for something that did not exist. And you can't set conditions. Bring what you can find and we'll discuss it. Zero^talk 05:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible POV issues

Issue 1

I have been reading 'UNSCOP' and 'Background' sections. What struck me is while UNSCOP was created to investigate the cause of the conflict in Palestine among the Jewish and Arab population. The only mentions of any conflict, opposition to the British and resistance in the whole article, focused solely on jews:

• White Paper "led to the formation of Lehi, a small Jewish terrorist organization which opposed the British, and, at one time, sought to make an agreement with the Nazis
• ..in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and also organized an armed resistance.

Which is peculiar considering the Arab civil unrest was far more significant and effected early partition proposals. Most notably the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine, which led to the Peel Commission and later the White Paper immigration restrictions - None of which is mentioned.

Similarly the "Background of UNSCOP" section go into greater detail about immigration restriction brought by the White Paper and external interest influences in the wake of WW2.(far greater detail then any of the early partition proposals mentioned) Going by an older revision, similar note about British geopolitical consideration leading to the White paper, to shore up Arab support and access to oil for WW2 was removed.--PLNR (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue 2

I have compared the current 'Background' with an old revision. I have noted that previously we note the Jewish/Arab misconception in regard to the British conflicting statements, concerning the future of Palestine partition(which IMO was a good thing, since it place in context the growing dissatisfaction of the Jewish/Arab populations from the partition plans), It also notes Balfour declaration in the context of 1922 mandate legal document.

Extended content

In the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, Great Britain agreed to "recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within" a large portion of the Ottoman Empire. Differences of interpretation arose in relation to whether Palestine was included in the British undertaking. In exchange, the Arabs agreed to revolt against the Ottomans. In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration, which expressed British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine. Based in part on these arguably contradictory promises, both Jews and Arabs came to believe that the British had promised them an independent state in Palestine. The Paris Peace Conference (including the Treaty of Sèvres), and the San Remo Conference, laid the foundations for the British Mandate of Palestine. After much debate concerning Jewish and Arab claims to the land, the following compromise language acknowledging the Balfour Declaration was included in the Mandate: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country." On 24 July 1922, the Mandate was approved by the League of Nations. On 16 September 1922 the League approved the Transjordan memorandum exempting the portions of the Mandate east of the Jordan River from the provisions concerning a Jewish National Home and Immigration. This territory eventually became the nation of Jordan.

In the current version the Jewish/Arab views/misconception have been removed, in favor of lengthy memorandum of what the 1917 Balfour Declaration didn't promised and reason against it(no counter), as oppose to what 1922 mandate legal document did say.

Extended content

In the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the British foreign secretary stated that the British government viewed "with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people [with the understanding that] nothing should be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine . . . ." . Neither partition nor statehood was mentioned as the means of accomplishing the National Home. Lord Curzon, who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary, wrote a memorandum expressing concern about what would become of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine who had "occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years" and would "not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter."

--PLNR (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue 3

• PLNR - What is the source for the statement you recently added: "The United Kingdom, occupied the territory in 1918 following the Armistice of Mudros." British occupation of Palestine began in 1917 (see e.g Morris 2001 pg 31: "Jerusalem had fallen to Allenby in December 1917; Beirut, on October 8, 1918—a week after the Arabs entered Damascus. The Ottoman Empire was no more." In any case unsourced material introduced into articles can (and should be) removed on sight. Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because several countries put troops on the ground in Normandy, doesn't mean you were occupying parts of France... occupation is legal term, so while British occupation there might have began in 1917, its officially formalized as part of the Armistice of Mudros.--PLNR (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in your opinions on the topics. If you have a WP:RS to support the statement it can be re-added. If you don't it stays out. Dlv999 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have picked a better example, I assumed it was common knowledge. As for interests nor me nor Wiki policy is particular interested in play on words between "occupied" and "occupation ..began in" or WP:SYN?(concerning when Jerusalem or any other part was occupied). The fact is that the British Palestine campaign officially(occupied) ended with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918(you can read about it here: Sinai and Palestine Campaign) if you still want a source, add a citation needed template and I'll dig several for you.--PLNR (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, every addition you make to the encyclopaedia needs to be verifiable. It is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. See WP:VERIFIABILITY: " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - Any additions you make to the encyclopaedia, not directly supported by an RS, can be removed on sight. Debating your own views on talk without supplying source evidence is not going to change that. By the way, Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS - see WP:CIRCULAR.Dlv999 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Simple Yes, would have sufficed. Like I said I have no problem to copy&paste a source from the main article, find one or simply change the wording to accommodate your objection. However, in general I have learned to be vary of well intention people on arbitration articles, who quick to quote big policy, dig info to contradict and removed on sight, while other long time taged info remain untouched, some times it indicate whitewashing of specific inclusion/exclusions. As I implied with Issues 1-2 above, this article isn't exactly NPOV by giving undue weight to various events and exclusion of notable information, although it seems like it was all made gradually with policy based arguments.--PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yankor - With reference to wikipedia policy and source evidence could you please explain on what grounds you have tagged the sourced quote in the article as "neutrality disputed". Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed instead. Its nothing but POV pushing veiled in quotes. --PLNR (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless commenting here unless you are able to provide rational evidence/policy based justifications for your assertions. Dlv999 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote is a clear POV against the Balfour declaration. e.g. The Arabs acts a drawers of water to the Jews. Is that correct? It should be balanced with a pro Balfour declaration view. Moreover, it is not supported at all. How do we know that Kurzon really said so? Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is policy and on top of one sided commentary, do you have any policy based rational behind adding this direct quotation and its reverence to the topic: "..as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter" care to explain this in policy based rational?--PLNR (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's quoted in a WP:RS as relevant to the topic . Our WP:NPOV policy tells us to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is a significant view that has been published by RS on the topic therefore it should be included per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with your policy argument IF it was the 'Balfour Declaration' article, but it will be removed unless you can explain why this lone memorandum is notable, when it led to no policy change, on the contrary the ideas in the Balfour declaration was endorsed by France and Italy in 1918, and by the league of nations in 1922 and included as part of the mandate. Thus it receives undue weight and the only purpose of it is to present the Arab POV in quotes.--PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly it is not the "Arab POV" it is that of a British government official who succeeded Balfour as Foreign Secretary. Second saying it is the Arab POV would not be a legitimate reason to exclude a viewpoint from the article. WP:NOV says we should include all significant views and the Arab Palestinian perspective is obviously significant on this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lord Curzon was one member of the Cabinet and despite his opinion, the Cabinet approved Balfour declaration. I am still waiting for you to show why a minority view of one of the Cabinet members concerning the Balfour declaration, declaration which was later endorsed by France and Italy in 1918, and by the league of nations in 1922. Is notable in the context of the Partition Plan and shouldn't be removed.

As for POV. I was very amused to find comment in one of the commissions concerning the partition, noting how through the conflict both Jews and Arabs were crying fiercely: "This land is mine". Of course presenting only one of the views in quotes or otherwise is violation of NPOV.--PLNR (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Concerning your recent revert. Other that noting that it was quoted in WP:RS, you have yet to back up your assertion that it is relevant and WP:DUE in the context of this article on Partition Plan.(not Balfour declaration). As noted above the memorandum was written by Lord Curzon,(not a Foreign Secretary at the time, which additionally a violation of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE) one of many Cabinet members, his minority opinion hasn't effected the Cabinet decision to approve Balfour Declaration and his objection has no historic relevance in the context of the Partition. Since Balfour Declaration was later reaffirmed by the league of nations and made part of the mandate.

2)Further please explain your rational for this re-adding this [7]: "Arab inhabitants of Palestine" to "Arab inhabitants of Palestine who occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years", why the quote is necessary in WP terms(Keep in mind that I recently held off adding similar Jewish POV stated in the Mandate document)--PLNR (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that your own views on the topic (and what is important about the topic) is quite different to what published academic experts have written (and regard as important by including in their published material). There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem arises when you try to promote your own views above what has been published by academic experts. you say that Curzon's view was a minority in the Cabinet. True. But Wikipedia policy tells us to include all significant viewpoints published in RS (both majority and minority). On a more general note, it seems to me that you are working through the article trying to delete all the well sourced information that might indicate why the Arabs had very sound rational reasons to oppose Zionism and the partition plan. It is right that this information (where well sourced) is included, we are not here to create some one sided propaganda piece where the reader would have no notion at all why the Arabs rejected the plan and the Zionist project in their homeland. Dlv999 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of accusation and general WP:IDONTLIKEIT, do you have any policy based argument supported by WP:RS :

• "Lord Curzon, who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary," - violation of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE.
• "Arab inhabitants of Palestine that occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years" introduce bias, in violation of NPOV.
• That Curzon's view in context of the Partition Plan(NOT the Balfour declaration article) - WP:UNDUE.

Off topic: As for "Arabs had very sound rational reasons to oppose Zionism", I agree, but this section is about how Partition plan conceptualized and POV Pushing arab(or Jewish) reasons into it is not OK. If you have any concerns about any part I can easily explain my rational for.--PLNR (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As already discussed the material is already sourced to an appropriate WP:RS. WP:NPOV says we include all significant published viewpoints (even minority ones). Your objections seem to be based in a misunderstanding of the core policies of the encyclopaedia, which has also led you into a problematic edit pattern of deleting sourced material while adding unsourced claims to the article. Including the viewpoints of significant parties is not "POV pushing" - we are supposed to include all significant published viewpoints. Dlv999 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Asserting that it is sourced to WP:RS and NPOV, while time and time again failing to support that it is WP:DUE in the context of this article isn't a discussing.

Concerning "who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary," I am going to remove it, since it is a clear violation of WP:SYN which gives WP:UNDUE weight to Curzon statement.

Concerning the later two points, before you continue to argue policy, to keep this distinctly minority view, which isn't directly about the subject of the article. So you can push Arab POV. I suggest that you take a minute and read the article again and see if this course will improve it and benefit the reader(notion concerning why the Arabs/Jews rejected/accepted the plan are presented in reactions, while the background covers how the plan was conceptualized) Because honestly I am not going to continue arguing with someone whose idea of discussion is digging his heels, without being able to articulate his rational other than in some vague bumpersticker statements, however, I will redirect the topic by following your assertions and make several big additions/changes to that paragraph through WP:RS. (see also #Lehi and Nazi collaboration section) --PLNR (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are discussing whether on the Partition Plan article, the view of one cabinet member concerning the Balfour Declaration, which was approved and endorsed by the league of nations is DUE here i.e. :

In 1917, Lord Curzon, a British cabinet member, as part of deliberations on what would be knows as Balfour Declaration, wrote a memorandum expressing concern about what would become of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine who had "occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years" and would "not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter." [1][neutrality is disputed][citation needed] British cabinet approved the Balfour Declaration, which stated the government support for the "establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people [with the understanding that] nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".[1][2] The League of Nations reaffirmed this commitment in 1922 by establishing the Mandate of Palestine with the prerogative to carry out the Balfour Declaration.[3] Neither partition nor statehood was mentioned as the means of accomplishing the National Home.--PLNR (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

---

• Dlv999, regarding your edits: [8], [9] i.e.

The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes,[4] but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world,[5] except for its fringes.[6]

Sticking to the source is great as long as you don't misrepresent them, but do you have a rational for using different terminology in both parts of the sentence? Whats wrong with 'Jewish public' like 'Arab Public'? or for example use Jewish Agency which was the Jewish representatives in those years(including in UNSCOP) or just say along with the rest of Zionist movement? Because it looks like the purpose is to emphasis the term Zionist. --PLNR (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing Wikipedia articles is about accurately representing what has been written in reliable sources (See our core policies WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV). If you are doing anything other than accurately representing what the cited source says, you are not following policy. Your proposal's are not consistent with the source, so there is nothing really more to say here, unless you can find an RS to support your proposals, in which case you are free to make the changes. Dlv999 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

to Dlv999, yet a lead should represent a summary of the article. Which use similar language to the variants I suggested, or the ones currently used in the second half of the sentence. So basing the lead wording on one source as opposed to summary of all the sources in the article is not Ok. --PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

---

to PLNR: Concerning this sentence, in my opinion it should be concised to :The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes,[4] but rejected by the Arabs except for its fringes.[6]. However, user:Trahelliven resisted and claimed that it is impossible to prove that all Arabs opposed it. The result was this rather cumbersome sentence.(BTW I am an Israeli) Ykantor (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I still resist it. Some of the Arabs did not oppose it because they had their own agendas. Some may have not opposed it simply because they were uneducated and had no idea what it was all about. Perhaps some did not even direct their minds to it because they did not live in Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The same argument can be said of Jews, so why change\expand the wording on one side of the sentence and not the other. After all its 'Arab state' and 'Jewish state', then 'Arab public\leaders\international interest' and 'Zionist'. --PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• The right word "Zionist". Talking about "Jewish" is misleading given that it is the the Zionist project that had the nationilist ambition of building a Jewish State in Palestine, not the Jews (who didn't constitute a political entity).
• The situation is more complex on the Arab side than on the Zionist side. If nearly Arab leaders were opposed to the Partition, and even any partition (sic), that is not the case for all Arabs. 1. King of Transjordan was favorable to the Partition (with the mind of annexing the Arab side) and most of the Palestinian Arab population didn't really care. As reported by historians, most of the Palestinian Arab village passed agreement with the Zionist. Both these are reported by historians and therefore we should take this into account in the wordings.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012, The complexity of the Arab situation as it pertains to our case is irrelevant, Bottom line is that except for some fringes, they rejected it. Choosing to naming all Arab factions doesn't change that. Just the same naming 'Jewish public and Jewish Agency, along with the rest of the Zionist movement, except for its fringes' doesn't change the bottom line. So go either one way or the other in both parts.--PLNR (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you: the complexity is relevant. Abdallah was a key actor of the war and the strategy of partition, being the man of the British.

And a disctinction must be made between, Arab and Arab leaders and between Palestinian Arabs and Arabs given their behaviour and goals were different.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Distinction is made, only not in the context the lead. Since except for its fringes Arabs agreed to disagree, so the statement "rejected by Arabs except for some fringes" is just as valid. Your choice to provide distinction server no purpose in the context of the lead other than to provide exposition on who the key Arab players are, I have no problem with that, as long as you provide similar exposition concerning Jewish key players as well i.e. 'Jewish public and Jewish Agency, along with the rest of the Zionist movement, except for its fringes'.

p.s. to make sure we don't railroad, I am speaking about the current lead as outlined above. It has nothing todo with your discussion with AnonMoos concerning Abdullah. If and when that discussion bear fruit\changes, then it would be relevant to me --PLNR (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

They didn't act as a whole. On the contrary, the Yishuv was united.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012 -- There weren't too many non-Zionist Jews in mandatory Palestine in 1947, and they had very little impact on events. In any case, the official representative body was the "Jewish Agency", the partition plan spoke of a "Jewish state" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless the cited source clearly states Zionists, and our job is to accurately reflect RS, not to make OR arguments. If you want to put something different, you are going to have to find RS to support it. Dlv999 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Jews of Palestine didn't support the Partition because they were Jews. They supported it because they were Zionists. And there is nothing pejorative in the term "Zionist". The Jewish Agency depended on World Zionist Organisation.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- As has been gone over several times before, the only Arabs who were publicly in favor of partition were the Moscow-line Communists, who followed every twist and turn of comrade Stalin's policies unquestioningly. Abdullah of Transjordan was in favor of the plan in private negotiations IF the Arab state in the plan would be annexed to Transjordan BUT was not willing to come out publicly in support of the plan. Any other Arabs who might possibly have been in favor of some form of partition had already been pretty much intimidated into silence by 1947. All Arab states, as well as the Arab League and the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, were unanimously against any form of partition. As far as the British and the United Nations were concerned, all relevant official or quasi-official sources of information indicated that the Arabs rejected the plan. For us at this late date to attempt to conduct some kind of hypothetical retroactive opinion poll would be blatant original research of the worst kind... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Except Abdallah who was in favor of a Partition and a significative part of the Palestinian Arab population who didn't care. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As has been gone over multiple times here, Abdullah of Transjordan was in favor of the plan in private negotiations IF AND ONLY IF the Arab state in the plan would be annexed to Transjordan BUT was not willing to come out publicly in support of the plan. He was an opponent as far as public diplomacy went. And a significant part of the Arabs in mandatory Palestine thought that whichever Arab state played a leading role in strangling Israel at birth and "throwing the Jews into the sea" would naturally annex most or all of Palestine, which would then be a step towards Arab unification... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So he was in favor of the partition (and he is not fringe).

And should we refer to the fact Ben Gurion was in favor "if and only if" this was the basis for the conquest of the remaining ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that the Ben Gurion comment referred to the 1937 Peel Plan, which was very different from the 1947 U.N. plan. And none of your tendentiousness does anything to change the fact that from the British and United Nations perspective, all relevant official or quasi-official sources of information indicated that the Arabs rejected the plan, while the Jewish community accepted. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

to AnonMoos: You are definitely right. The Arabs rejected the partition with few fringes, like the Egyptian newspaper that I have added recently. Nashashibi family and Abdula partially accepted the partition. i.e They agreed to the Jewish state but have not agreed to an Arab state.

However, Wikipedia is not about accuracy but it is an anarchist framework, where rules are ignored, and whoever win the "consensus" is dictating the article content. Ykantor (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Nashashibi family consistently came out on the losing side of a long series internal Arab power struggles during the whole British mandate period, and really didn't count for much in 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion, if any, stops here. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

to PLNR

That sentence is critical because it was the subject of a DRN and that will be hard to modify this:

"The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes,[4] but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world,[5] except for its fringes.[6]"

My personal mind is that we should avoid sentences that use words that are unclear and we should stick to facts. Instead of "fringes", I think we should just say "who".

That being said, if I had to write I would say something such as:

"The plan was welcomed by the Yishuv and accepted by the leaders of the Zionist movement because it gave them a State. Revisionnists nevertheless rejected any limitation to the territory of Eretz Yisrael where a Jewish State could be established. On the Arab side, the plan was rejected by the huge majority of Arab leaders who considered the partition unfair and a spoliation of Arab's property. Only Abdallah of Transjordan who expected to annex the Arab side at minimum to his Kingdom welcomed the plan. The reaction of the Arabs of Palestine was mitigated: some preparing for war but most resigning to the outcome. British were upset by the vote, expecting its rejection, that would have given them idle-hands to handle the question of Palestine at their best interest."

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for providing me with background relating to this issue(Any chance for the DRN link?). Personally, I have no objection with large part of your variant(until the reactions), though I am likely not qualified to comment on an issue which required a DRN. Still I would like to press the issue of noting the "Jewish Agency" at some capacity. Which was the official Jewish representative at several British committees, UNSCOP, accepted the UN resolution(later declared the state) and noted heavily through out this article. (e.g. see this UN publication from the article http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf ).--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Jewish Agency" is better than "Zionist movement" for the same reason as "fringe" is not a good choice. It is better to stick precisely to facts.

here is the link.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: Thanks for the link, I finally followed it up. From the looks of it, that DRN was focused solely on the second part of the sentence, concerning the inclusion of a certain quote from one source. So there is no reason why we shouldn't tackle the issue in the first part of the sentence. The lead should be a summary of the article and its the Jewish Agency which was the main actor here as Representative of Jewish interest in Palestine and accepting the UN Resolution/Plan (and in previous plans), if necessary we can add additional sources. --PLNR (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I just informed you of the care to take with that sentence.

I agree with Jewish Agency, as stated here above.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Background - Palestinian Arab goals during the Revolt

An edit has just been made to text in the second paragraph of the Background section which outlines the goals of the Palestinian Arabs during the revolt which started in 1936. The text is sourced The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by to Rashid Khalidi, though the page number should read 111, not 181. The relevant section of the book reads: "The heavy casualties suffered by the Palestinians give ample evidence of their willingness to make sacrifices in order to achieve their national goals of independence from Britain and an end to the process whereby they saw their country slipping under the control of foreigners." The original article text adhered closely - in fact so close as to be plagiarism - to this; the new text doesn't. The new text also refers to the Palestinian Arabs as Arab nationals. My impression is that being Arab is, outside Israel, usually seen as a cultural, rather than national, identity, which would mean that the concept of Arab nationals hardly exists.     ←   ZScarpia   02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Using the word "Palestinians" in that sense is anachronistic, because in 1936 the word meant all the inhabitants of the British Mandate territory, whether Arab, Jewish, Circassian or whatever. And don't tell the Qawmiyya adherents that being Arab is not a nationality... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I agree with what you say about the meaning of the word Palesinian in the mandate era. I would suggest that in the article we use a phrase such as Palestinian Arabs. As far as the nationality issue goes, we hit the problem of the difference in meaning of nationality and ethnicity and the associated difficulty caused by different languages not having words which exactly match conceptually. Depending on how you define the terms, ethnic varieties of nationalism exist, one of which would be Arab nationalism, Jewish nationalism another. The main objection to the original wording appears to have been the use of the word 'foreigners'. A solution to that might be to clarify that the people referred to were foreigners in the eyes of Palestinian Arabs, not de facto.     ←   ZScarpia   13:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (amended as Dlv999's comment below was being added: 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)) {In fact, conveniently for my argument, there's an article on ethnic nationalism}

Having said that Khalidi is a published academic expert on Palestinian nationalism/identity and it's history. I don't think it is consistent with core policies and principles of the encyclopaedia to amend text supported by high quality RS because of the personal views of individual editors. Dlv999 (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@ZScarpia, I have hard time to figure out what exactly is your point. Do you believe that the new variant is not supported by source and want to tag the sentence with {{cn}}, or..? because this variant is from the main article on the Arab revolt, where it was ironed out over many WP:RS, not just the one fished here and I find it far more neutral and concise then the previous variant.--PLNR (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To add that, please provide explanation for your recent unexplained revert[10] and removal of source that support the wording that you were struggling with. --PLNR (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD: you should have discussed Dlv999's justified revert of you before reverting him straight back again. When sources say different things, it's not OK just to impose your preferred wording over the top, ignoring those differences.     ←   ZScarpia   13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You can't claim WP:BRD, when there is already an on going discussion, we either discuss or edit war, Dlv999 revert isn't justified since he ignored discussion and "imposing a desired version" i.e. edit warring. Also since my edit hasn't changed the variant at all, only added a source, your unexplained revert is edit warring. Which is emphasized by the lack of any constructive component to your current comment, after all we are not here to "imposing a desired version" but discuss right? so how about you address the issue I originally sated in my edit summary, and since the wording is obviously supported by WP:RS and is certainly have weight behind them(being in the lead of years long article) what wrong with that neutral and concise wording?--PLNR (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your version of the text still fails to represent what Khalidi, whose book is also a WP:RS and was left in the article as a source, wrote. With WP:BRD, the original is restored and a discussion ensues. Now it just happens that I chose not to revert your initial change, but Dlv999 did it instead.     ←   ZScarpia   14:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (It should probably also be noted that the addition of Morris as a source was botched: the text 'Morris, 1999, p. 136.' was displayed in the reference section, yet no 1999 work by Morris is cited elsewhere.)

I made one revert, that is not edit warring. PLNR made two reverts of the content within 24 hours. Not only is it edit warring, it is in violation of 1rr restrictions. [11][12]. Regarding the content issue: Wikipedia is not a source, so if you are citing Wikipedia, you are adding unsourced content. Regarding the Morris citation, fine, it allows you to add the material supported by Morris. It does not give you the right to censor what Khalidi wrote. Perhaps text that incorporates the two sources could be something like:

In 1937, following a six-month-long Arab General Strike and armed insurrection in which the Palestinians sought to obtain their national goals of independence from the British and to halt mass Jewish immigration and the process in which they saw the country coming under the control of foreigners. Dlv999 (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you combining two sources? Probably makes sense to cite both separately.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to any textual suggestions that are consistent with the cited sources. I'm not open to any language that does not accurately represent what the sources say. Dlv999 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at it: [13]. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the book of Morris's being referred to is Righteous Victims, of which I have a 2001 copy (the citation states 1999 and no 1999-dated work by Morris appears elsewhere in the reference section). Looking at page 136, Morris is describing Ben-Gurion's interpretation of the cause of Arab fears; what he is not doing is stating in his own voice what the aims of the Palestinian Arabs' general strike and insurgency were.     ←   ZScarpia   14:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@dlv999, Edit count helps to limit Edit warring by forcing people to discuss, but ignoring discussion to push on your variant is exactly what edit war is. ZScarpia most certainly did. Also you'd think by now that you realize that just because you fished some WP:RS that says what you want to say, it doesn't mean it is WP:DUE for the topic of this specific article and or WP:NPOV, certainly not the whole sentence\paragraph. Speaking of which does the UN Partition plan is noted anywhere in there?

Any version with "foreigners" which is a POV slant, and will not be acceptable. Thanks Brewcrewer for trying to look for a compromise, but using all the details of both variants is undue, this article is not about the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine conflicting views should be concised, which precisely what the previous edit did, mention the growing Arab nationalism and concerns about immigration, both are contributing factors to Peel plan and notable in the context of the UN Partition plan. --PLNR (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you quote which part of p.136 of Morris's book you used as the basis for your change, please? As far as the use of the word 'foreigners' goes, it was preceded by the words "they saw", which, though ambiguous, can be taken as an indication that the people referred to were foreigners in the eyes of the Palestinian Arabs. It could be made explicit by changing the wording to "in their eyes" or "from their point of view".     ←   ZScarpia   16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the breach of the 1RR restriction on this article mentioned by Dlv999, I'm going to request that you're formally notified of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions.     ←   ZScarpia   17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Kinda of pointless since I can't self revert, right? Though I will have a "good" word for your edit practice.(btw does, your exceptional participation here, contrasted with your exceptional avoidance in the 1947-1948 section above, means you finally out of excuses?)

Also I wasn't clear before, I am objecting to the whole "halt the process in which they saw the country coming under the control of foreigners", the term "foreigners" is just the icing on that POV cake. Unless you can show me how that it was quoted in te context of the UN partition plan and has any notable impact on it. --PLNR (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The source is directly discussing the Arab revolt in the context of the plan to partition Palestine. Dlv999 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more precise in what way, after all the book is about "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood", not the UN partition plan. Also lets be honest, we had this discussion before, in more than several occasions. Hence:

"you'd think by now that you realize that just because you fished some WP:RS that says what you want to say, it doesn't mean it is WP:DUE for the topic of this specific article and or WP:NPOV, certainly not the whole sentence\paragraph."

So let skip your vague policy based assertion. I have at least one book about the British Mandate that covers those revolts and peel plan and using your exact argument I can bloat the UN partition plan background section ten times over with quotes such as these. I doubt you'll like most of them, so obviously we need to consider WP:DUE and work to make a neutral concise summary. so I am asking the usual question concerning your inclusion:

"The heavy casualties suffered by the Palestinians give ample evidence of their willingness to make sacrifices in order to achieve their national goals of independence from Britain and an end to the process whereby they saw their country slipping under the control of foreigners."

What its impact on UN partition plan conceptualization? as opposed to being selectively picked quote to reinforce a certain narrative(as is in the case of the 1947-1948 section) using a pov slant "foreigners".--PLNR (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should confine discussion of whether the material should be included in the article or not to where it's already being discussed, in the '1947-1948' section above, and stick to discussing the wording of the material here. Unless you can explain how the source you want to use justifies your wording then your wording is going to be rejected, particularly as it is contradicted by the pre-existing source, which the original wording followed (too) closely. Khalidi's book is as much about the United Nations Partition Plan as Morris's is. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for you to object to one source while either trying to use, or approving of, the other.     ←   ZScarpia   23:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The "1947-1948" section address a particular edit which used that phrase in its edit summary. It concerns the peel report in the context of the UN partition. While here its about the 1936–39 Arab revolt so if you wish to include the later part of your copy&paste sentence, we first need to address the issue of notability in the context of the UN partition plan conceptualization(as noted in my previous post) Otherwise you'll get a lot of Zionist and their counterparts POV pushing here.

Also I didn't said I object Khalid source, I objected the notability and neutrality of adding that particular sentence dlv999 copied in the context of the UN partition Plan conceptualization. Since I seen the Arab national aspirations and immigration issue quoted in most summaries I read. However I only seen details such the Arab view here in the context of the linked main articles, so yes selectively picking one of them is a concern to me(i.e. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV).--PLNR (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote above: "Also I wasn't clear before, I am objecting to the whole "halt the process in which they saw the country coming under the control of foreigners", the term "foreigners" is just the icing on that POV cake." Could you be specific about what you think the POV issues are?     ←   ZScarpia   01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I already covered it in the second part of the post you quoted and the post that followed, but if you wish: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject .. A subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In out case while I can easily explain and source the importance of the first two in the context of the UN partition plan, I am struggling with "foreigners" part outside of the peel plan, which is why I am waiting for dlv999 to explain its impact on UN partition plan conceptualization? as opposed to being selectively picked quote to reinforce a certain narrative(as is in the case of the 1947-1948 section) using a pov slant "foreigners". --PLNR (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As already discussed the material is covered by Khalidi in relation to the partition plan for Palestine. The sentences preceding the line in question: "the disturbances in Palestine erupted in open revolt in the fall of 1937, after a British commission headed by Lord Peel published its recommendation for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state. The revolt rose to a crescendo in the following months."

Given the demands you are placing on other editors, I am going to request that you explain exactly how you have come to the conclusion that your Morris citation is relevant and how it supports the language you introduced to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PLNR, my interest, given your complaints about POVism, is to establish a neutral form of wording. The section of the rules that you quoted isn't really about neutral wording at all though, it's about weight. It could touch neutrality if an excessive amount of weight was being given to one point of view, but we're discussing one part of a sentence here.

With regard to the use of the word 'foreigners', which is a direct copy of the word used by Khalidi, did you read what I wrote above about making the wording less ambiguous by stating explicity that the people referred to were foreigners 'in the eyes' of Palestinian Arabs?

    ←   ZScarpia   01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dlv999 My "demand" is that you give us the same courtesy that I give you i.e. explain why my inclusions are relevant and due to the topic. Because so far my impression is that you have been consistently unconcerned with improving the article, your inclusions seem to push select point of views on topics which the article is not primarily about. While asked about it you tend to shielding from discussion by giving your usual policy template response, thus un-necessarily dragging the discussion. So in case you are familiar with the topic and not just fishing for quotes in sources to advance a certain narrative, what I am asking for you to explain what is the significance of your edit [14] and why its due in regard to the UN partition plan. So we can engage in constructive discussion and find concise version which is significant and due to the UN partition plan and supported by WP:RS, not a WP:RS.

The sentences you added, place your previous quote in context, it refers to the Arab rejection of the "peel plan" and details the reasons for the revolt that ensued. While, you placed your quote before the peel plan in reference to the six month of relatively peaceful general strike. which is why we discuss those thing as oppose to try push changes with claims of WP:RS.

@ZScarpia, its all part of the samething and WP:BALASPS is mouthful. As for your wording, I am happy to consider it one we finish establishing if this part of the sentence is due at all.--PLNR (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your latest comment is hard to follow. You are yet to explain yourself with regards the Morris citation and related content. So I will request again that you explain your proposed edit in light of the extensive demands you are making of other editors. Dlv999 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Asserting opinion in the Wikipedia vioce

• "The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public and Jewish Agency, except for its fringes, despite its limitations;[4][5]"

WP:NPOV states that we should "avoid stating opinions as fats". Claiming that the Plan had "limitations" in the Wikipedia voice contravenes basic policy when it was the opinion of one of the involved parties. Dlv999 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me as though source selectivity, and a little bit of interpretation, has been carried out. Celebration when the UN passed the resolution doesn't mean that the Jewish public or even the Jewish Agency actually accepted the whole plan (some sources state that the creation of a 'Jewish state' was the only provision which Ben-Gurion accepted), it just means that there was celebration after the vote. Part of what Morris may regard as part of a 'fringe', that is, the Revisionists, who rejected the plan (they thought that the whole of Palestine should become a 'Jewish state'), wasn't insignificant. Any idea how recently the text was changed? Didn't the article used to descrine the response of the various Zionist organisations and bodies when the plan was actually finalised? It does rather look as though the current wording ignores years of talkpage discussion. In my opinion, it's ok to describe the reaction to the vote, but not to the exclusion of a description of the reaction to the announcement of the plan. Also, any interpretation put on the sources which isn't directly supported by the sources should be removed. Also, is a pamphlet really the best source available?     ←   ZScarpia   20:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with ZScarpia.

• Welcome can be used instead of Accept.
• Jewish, Arab and British reactions should be described
• Instead of for its fringes, it should be stated Who.
• Instead of despite limitations, it could be stated Which ones

Let's have in mind this is the lead anyway.

Pluto2012 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Pamphlet appears to suggest that the Declaration occurred after the termination of the Mandate. This is incorrect. I have altered the article accordingly. Trahelliven (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Earlier in the evening, the Jewish People's Council had gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum ... ." A major determinant of the timing of the declaration was that it had to allow religiously-observant members of the audience to travel home before the start of the sabbath, which began at nightfall on the 14th. It might, therefore, be worth checking that the event didn't start in the afternoon rather than the evening.     ←   ZScarpia   22:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)