Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Baylis Thomas is not a RS

Baylis Thomas is not a RS, and besides he is a liar. I propose to delete his quotes, unless it is backed by a RS Ykantor (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is Baylis Thomas and why would he be a liar ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's go about this without hysterical accusations please, Ykantor.

• Where is Thomas, as cited here, lying?
• Why is Bayley Thomas, a clinical psychologist with professional expertise in conflict resolution,- if ever an historical situation required imput not only from archival historians but from experts on the dynamics of conflict between unreconciled parties, this is it - for which he was employed at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine faculty at Yeshiva University and who has two historical works to his credit published by Lexington Books, which aims for an academic market, and whose works have been positively reviewed by scholars (Ian Lustick who on the blurb is cited as evaluating his first book as 'a well-documented, well-written, and persuasive account that mobilizes knowledge not readily available to the non-expert,') and prominent voices within American Judaism ( Allan Brownfeld, necessarily 'unreliable'? Have you any reviews which, as one might cite for example for Ilan Pappé, argue that the history given by Thomas contains serious distortions or factual twisting? Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Some links:

• The American Council for Judaism: A Thoughtful Look At Zionism’s Often Overlooked Dark Side, Allan C. Brownfeld, 2010.
• goodreads: The Dark Side of Zionism: The Quest for Security Through Dominance
• goodreads: How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
• Baylis Thomas blog

Article cite refs 31, 35, 46: Citations of How Israel Was Won.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

-wp:rs: "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication" How many people were involved in the checking?

-"How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence". Which RS is using Mr Thomas as a source?

-"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" Is there an editorial oversight in this case?

-Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) (essay): "Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible"

- in my opinion, it is preferable to quote better sources. Ykantor (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've said this several times. Please don't open threads disordinately. You made a statement (Bayley Thomas is a liar (see WP:BLP), referring to his book(s). Two editors asked you to clarify this by evidence. You have failed to respond to the query.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to see some kind of justification for calling Thomas a liar, not least because doing so is a BLP issue.

As for giving some kind of answer to your questions: Google Scholar lists 30 publications which refer to or cite How Israel Was Won; the publisher, Lexington, is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefied, the name kept on when the University Press of America bought that company in 1988, and as a publisher of "scholarly books and journals for the academic market" you'd expect it to exercise a reasonable degree of editorial control and review.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Same as Nishidani and ZScarpia.

What are the lies ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

to ZScarpia: I did not know that Lexington is a publisher of scholarly books, nor I understand the meaning of Google Scholar listing 30 of publications. based on this info only, would you call him a RS?

- concerning calling Thomas a liar: The Haganah on the offensive : "By late April, the U.S. State department, concerned to avoid a foreseeable conflagration after the British withdrawal, proposed a truce, managing to get the Arab states, that wished to avoid war, to accept informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected, including a Jewish immigration rate of 48,000 per annum. Likewise they promised to assist the Jews if Arab armies invaded subsequent to the truce. Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in, and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized, the Jewish authorities turned down the proposal.". This text is full of lies and bias.

--That was not a proposal for truce but a heavy pressure to defer Israel establishment, as written:" In late April, the U.S. State Department proposed a truce, in which the establishment of a Jewish state would be postponed for three months, and in return the Arab states were to delay their invasion. The Yishuv rejected a deferment of statehood"

--" the Arab states, that wished to avoid war," it is incorrect. The correct one is:" Ironically, the British cabinet had rejected an Azzam Pasha proposal for cessation of the hostilities, in which Jewish immigration would be halted, and Britain would work for the establishment of an Arab state over all of Palestine". Yes, in a sense they were prepared to avoid a war, provided that the Yishuv would totally and immediately surrender.

--"to accept informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected". I suspect that this is a lie. Ben Gurion would not consider such a severe immigration restriction, nor the Arab states.

--" Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in". incorrect. The British Navy applied a strict embargo on both arms and people , until the last minute at 15.5.1948. As an exception, 2 ships manage to infiltrate to Tel Aviv during April. During the same period, Arab armed forces freely moved across the borders to the neighboring Arab states, and the U.K continued to supply the Arabs states armies with weapons and ammunition, until couple of days before the invasion.

--" and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized". This correct description is used to mislead the reader, since the Israeli had to fight the combined Arabs states armies, and not the Palestinians.

-I have not read Baylis book, but even if only some of the following Amazon readers reviews are correct, it is sufficient to show that Baylis is not an Historian but a propagandist.

-Amazon: How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

-lies:

-Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to exchange territory for peace. Slight problem of course - Israel voted for it and every single Arab state voted against it. (might be inaccurate. see added note) Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

-The author wrote that Zionist land purchases created a degree of Arab landlessness in Palestine early on, but this was proved to be totally false by the Royal Peel Commission of 1938. The Peel Commission concluded that only a miniscule number of fellahin were displaced by Zionist land purchases, and that the growing number of landless Arab peasantry was due primarily to the great increase in the Arab population

-bias:

-In his analysis of conflict after the 1948 War he focuses on Israeli operations into the Jordanian controlled West Bank and ignores the Arab's frequent violent invasions of Israeli territory and their targeting of innocent Jewish civilians.

-Little attention is paid to Israel's offers to give up most or even all of the territory taken in 1967 in exchange for peace.

-he simply glosses over Israel's decision to give up more than 2/3 of its territory in exchange for making peace with Egypt, a deal that might well be called unprecedented in recorded history for a victorious power seeking a settlement.

-almost all the "atrocities" reported were done by Israelis. Arab Terrorist attacks targeting civilians were glossed over and portrayed as being mere defense of their "homeland"

-he seemed to discount Israeli reports on civilian casualties as mere"claims"

-the author made special note of the fact that Israel's 1950 Law of Return providing worldwide Jewry with the right of abode in Israel Violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial discrimination. Taking into account that the convention was adopted 19 years later in 1969, and that no comparatives are given for any other country's compliance with the same convention Ykantor (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

-Concerning the Security Council resolution 242, the Amazon reader quote is inaccurate. It was a Security Council resolution, so the Arabs and Israel did not vote. Syria and the PLO denounced the resolution. Egypt and Jordan accepted an interpretation of the resolution, which called for a full Israeli withdrawal before starting negotiations. Israel accepted an interpretation of the resolution: the extent of the withdrawal would come as a result of comprehensive negotiations that led to durable peace. Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar with the meaning of the word which means to deliberately speak an untruth, or falsify facts in order to deceive people. Are you saying that in the statements you cite, which you contend are erroneous, Baylis is deliberately concocting falsehoods to deceive his readership? Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Even considering this specific point (inaccurate Amazon reader accusation concerning resolution 242) , Bayliss statement ("Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242") is still a lie. What about the other accusations? Ykantor (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'balk' in English means to jib at an obstacle. Other sources use the word 'reluctant', for example. Israel accepted years later to comply with the provisions, and that brought down the government. And all this has stuff all to do with the issue. So, why is a perfectly acceptable description of a government jibbing at a proposal before accepting it a lie? Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess you talk about a different agreement, the Rogers Plan, " an initial decision to accept it had resulted in the right-wing Gahal party leaving Golda Meir's government in August 1970". Israel accepted the 242 resolution in Dec 1967, few weeks after the U.N decision, which was taken in the end of Nov 1967. Bayliss statement ("Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242") is still a lie. What about the other accusations? Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fa Christ or Yahweh's sake, Ykantor! You haven't read Baylis. You write as if you'd knocked down a bottle of Baileys. You rely on a review of it on AMAZON by some twit called J. A Magill who writes of 'How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict '

bias is evident. Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to exchange territory for peace. Slight problem of course - Israel voted for it and every single Arab state voted against it.

And you have then the impertinence on this dumb pseud's authority to use this nonsensical drivel, his skewing of the facts (all untrue) to repeatedly accuse the original author, who said no such thing, of being a 'liar'. If you repeat the word 'liar' again of a notable living scholar, you will be brought to book before our bailiwiki and sanctioned. Last warning. If you want to wake up from yourself, and save the rest of the community the usual nightmare of editing with you, read Baylis's book p.viii, where 'balk' is used of Israel's attitude on the run-up to the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and where Israel is described as 'balking' at returning the Sinai to Egypt, notwithstanding the 242 Resolution, which if you read history books, rather than Paul Magill in Sacramento, Israel did not accept within 'weeks' (liar!!!! irony) but some months later, in February, privately the following year, just around the time that, unknown to McGill, or is that a handle for Mr Magoo?, Egypt and Jordan also let Jarring know they accepted it. Take a wiki break, a long sabbatical. You are wasting your time with this farcical abuse of talk pages to finesse your misprisions of everything from English to sources to wikipolicy, and I, for one, have better things to do, i.e. actually edit this article, than to play cat-and-mouse with this crap-shooting gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had a very long day (see contribs) which explains this comical intemperance. But, Ykantor, you've had it coming for a long time. Attrition via obtusity is understandable, but, all the same, totally unacceptable. Consider very closely what you did here over the last few days, and if you can't see it, then you've a big problem in here. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

- The "The Haganah on the offensive" previously mentioned quote, is sufficient to prove that Baylis is a liar.

-Concerning Amazon reader quotes, I repeat: "I have not read Baylis book, but even if only some of the following Amazon readers reviews are correct, it is sufficient to show that Baylis is not an Historian but a propagandist."

-Concerning resolution 242, I repeat: " Israel accepted the 242 resolution in Dec 1967, few weeks after the U.N decision, which was taken in the end of Nov 1967". source: The Israeli parliament website (Hebrew), and not "some months later" as you wrote. Hence Israel did accepted it within 'weeks'.

-Baylis Thomas writes: "While the Arab countries and Israel eventually accepted Resolution 242". This short text has his share of lies. Israel accepted it within weeks, and not "eventually" as Baylis claims. The P.L.O Iraq and Syria did not accepted it. (Syria accepted it years later. Arafat accepted it more than 25 years later).

-It seems that a further digging in Baylis book, uncover more lies. Ykantor (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Resolution 242.

Israel indeed said it approved the resolution and Arab states indeed stated they rejected it but that's just politics. No later than the first day after the war, Israel started the colonisation by establishing semi-military settlements and allowing illegal civil settlements in the occupied territories making therefore impossible the: "acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area" required by the resolution. More Resolution 242 asked for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". We may consider Thomas is wrong when he states it was done 20 years later (after they gave back Sinai) given 47 years later it is still not the case given there are still occupied territories.

Of course, they are interpretations and quarrels about all this coming from the Israeli governments and pro-Israeli lobbies. But what Ykantor calls 'lies' is just the point of view of historians on the matter.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". They also annexed Jerusalem.

So it is logical that Thomas doesn't support the claim that Israeli would have approved this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pluto. Thomas was miscited. The word 'balk' is in the introductory summary of the contents of chapter 16 on 'The Yom Kippur War (1973) and Its Antecdedents' (p.viii). ('The UN Resolution 242 calls for return of captured Arab lands in exchange for peace treaties with Israel. Israel balks, retaining the Sinai, West Bank and Golan Heights') 'Balk' here refers to negotiations 1969-1973) In the relevant chapter Thomas wrote that Israel objected to the Resolution on security and territorial grounds, while Syria, Jordan and Egypt had misgivings because of the (notorious) failure of the Resolution to specify withdrawal from all territories. He then concludes 'While the Arab countries and Israel eventually accepted Resolution 242, the ambiguities clearly served Israeli, not Arab, interests' (p.190) That is a perfectly acceptable thumbnail sketch of several years.

What Ykantor did was cite some blogger on Amazon for the putative contents of Baylis's book and create one more potentially humongous time-wasting thread, instead of doing his homework, by consulting what Baylis as opposed to the nitwitted blogger actually wrote, which is the contrary to what both Ykantor and the blogger say he wrote. This kind of behaviour, maximilazing trivial misapprehensions in order to expand futile negotiations on the talk page, is unacceptable, as is the habit of WP:BLP calling an author a 'liar' while adamantly refusing to actually look at his book. I've said this, and Ykantor will not apologize: he's just pushed for another blogging exchange on the arms situation. This is not productive of article editing.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed this discussion and don't intend to put in the time to judge Bayliss Thomas properly. I'd just like to opine that Nishidani is alas right; this is not Ykantor's finest moment. I'll highlight one "lie" that Thomas is supposed to have told: "Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in"; see Ykantor's "disproof" above. Morris (Righteous Victims, p205) says "Finally, at the beginning of April, the first major injection of arms reached the Haganah, from Czechoslovakia—some 4,700 rifles, 240 machine guns, and 5 million rounds of ammunition. This relatively massive, shipment allowed the Haganah, at last, to concentrate a large number of weapons with sufficient ammunition in a single area for offensive operations, without dangerously stripping the localities. As Ben-Gurion observed at the time, '[F]ollowing the absorption of part of the Czech assistance, the situation changed radically in our favour.'" I guess Morris is lying too, even more blatantly than Thomas. Also see "The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race" by Amitzur Ilan for a thorough point-by-point refutation of the claim that Britain did not enforce the UN arms embargo on the Arabs. Zero^talk 06:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

- I stand by my words. My text is in line with this Morris quote. I wrote:"" Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in". incorrect. The British Navy applied a strict embargo on both arms and people , until the last minute at 15.5.1948. As an exception, 2 ships managed to infiltrate to Tel Aviv during April"

-Yours: "refutation of the claim that Britain did not enforce the UN arms embargo on the Arabs". I guess he mean the later period, after the invasion, while I wrote about the period before the Invasion, in which the Arab Legion received a large shipment of ammunition and arms(?) from a U.K army warehouse in the Suez zone, just days before the invasion. May I remind you, that you yourself have participated few months ago in a discussion where I quoted the Hansard, How Bevin justified continuous arms supply to Arab countries, although a parliament member reminded him that those Arab state said openly that they plan to invade Palestine. Ykantor (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Part 1: I don't understand why you wanted to quote yourself supporting Thomas while claiming to disprove him. Part 2: Ilan traces what actually happened, not just what some politician claimed might happen. Zero^talk 10:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Maybe that Yoav Gelber's summary of the war may solve all the issues raised by Ykantor once for all given he keeps pushing forward the Israeli narrative, trying to build this from relevant sources.

And I hope that he will have in mind that his remains Yoav Gelber's version. Palestinian historians (all liars for sure... in the ear of any Israeli) challenge this on several points.

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Pluto. I persisted past 'the emergence of Israel, its persistent existence as a spearhead of western civilization in the Middle East,'(I, like Tony Judt, had laboured under the misimpression it represented 'a (persisting) spearhead of 19th century Western nationalism in the Middle East') and 'As usual, the Palestinians blamed everyone but themselves'. I read Israeli newspapers everyday, which makes me think that universal vice is not unique to Palestinians). The following passage shows Ykantor's error re Great Britain, which has long detained us, an error coming from a desire to patch up his own version of history.

Most Arab armies depended on Britain for their supply of arms, munitions and spare parts. Hence, they suffered heavily from the embargo that the UN Security Council imposed in May 1948. But for two or three exceptional cases, the British government adhered to the embargo despite pressures from the army and its diplomats in the Arab countries. Toward the end of the war, the Arab governments found alternative sources of supply on the free European arms market, but it was too late to have a significant effect on the situation at the fronts. By contrast, the Israelis — having a long tradition of clandestine purchase and shipment of weapons — effectively circumvented the embargo. Since April 1948, small deliveries arrived by air and sea from Czechoslovakia and elsewhere and the large influx began after the end of the British mandate. By July, the IDF had balanced the initial superiority of the Arab armies in heavy equipment.

To make heavy weather of the rare exceptions is what bad historians do. We should not follow them.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, By Baylis Thomas. A list of Baylis lies and misleading text:

• Baylis: (Ben Gurion) "he was confident by April 1948 of having both U.S. support … in the event of any international war. P. 68

  -notes: Misleading. President Trumann helped Israel a lot, but the state Dpt was against Israel. The U.S banned arms supply to the Mid east, as early as Dec 1947, which hurt the Haganah, but not the Arabs Armies whose arms was supplied by the U.K and France.

• Baylis: he was confident by April 1948 of having both … and Jewish military superiority in the event of any international war. P. 68 (41)

  -notes: A lie. Ben Gurion was not confident. His military advisers told him that the winning chance was 50:50. He himself said that if Israel will succeed to hold on for the first 3-4 weeks, then there will be a good chance of survival . "the proposals— against the backdrop of intense fighting in Palestine and Arab threats to invade— triggered a painful debate in the Zionist leadership about whether to postpone statehood" Morris 2008 p. 174  ; "the Yishuv genuinely perceived the invasion as a threat to its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arab armies’ true lack of military efficiency, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally and prepared for the worst. … in the first month after the invasion the Arab armies enjoyed a considerable superiority in the air, artillery and light armor" Gelber

• Baylis: UN military experts shared his appraisal. P. 68 (41)

  -notes: A lie. The U.S thought otherwise. "Without “diplomatic and military support” from at least one Great Power, the Jewish state would go under within “two years,” they believed. Their advice against American intervention in support of a Jewish state was unequivocal . Morris 2008 p. 174 .  ; Marshall may have had in mind the CIA report of August 1947, which predicted that if war broke out between a newborn Jewish state and the Arab states, the Arabs would win. The prognosis had been “coordinated” with the intelligence arms of the departments of State, the army and navy, and the US Air Force. Morris 2008 p. 175

• Baylis: the Arab countries] still preferred a solution which would make it unnecessary for them to be drawn into war. They wished to avoid an armed conflict and thereby deny Abdullah the opportunity to pursue his expansionist aims p. 68. the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine p. 69

  -notes: Misleading. He omits the unacceptable conditions e.g. no arms supply " The truce proposals included a cessation of fighting, prohibition of entry of foreign troops into Palestine, and a limitation of Jewish immigration …… During the period of the truce, no steps shall be taken by Arab or Jewish authorities to proclaim a sovereign state in a part or all of Palestine.”335 Israel consistently rejected the linkage and the deferment of statehood. Morris 2008 P. 174

• Baylis: when the UN Security Council voted for a truce in the civil conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews on April 17, 1948 (one month before the end of the British mandate), Egypt voted in favor and Syria was prepared to agree p. 68

  -notes: Misleading. Egypt could not vote, since it was not a member. Syria agreed conditionally

He just got the countries reversed. Syria voted in favor as a member. Egypt voted for a GA resolution confirming the SC resolution a few weeks later. Zero^talk 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, By David Tal p. 83 on 17 April the Security Council accepted a resolution calling the Palestinians and the Jews to accept a cease-fire. Jamal al-Husayni rejected the decision, claiming that as the cease-fire would he based on the Partition Resolution, and as the Jews continued their preparation toward the establishment of their own government, the Palestinians could not accept the Resolution. Shertok accepted the military terms of the Resolution, hut rejected its political term… neither side respected the truce… Ykantor (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Baylis: they [the Arab countries] still preferred a solution which would make it unnecessary for them to be drawn into war. They wished to avoid an armed conflict and thereby deny Abdullah the opportunity to pursue his expansionist aims p. 68 CONTRADICTS:  ; The Arabs …. Might even accept de facto partition through acquiescence to march of Abdullah’s troops to Jewish-Arab frontier p. 69

  -notes: Contradicts itself

• Baylis: The State Department persuaded the Arab nations to accept, off the record, a Jewish immigration of 48,000 per year, a prior sticking point and condition demanded by Ben-Gurion….. By now accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal p. 69

  -notes: A lie. Ben Gurion have not accepted the 48000 limit. "But Ben-Gurion …. He bluntly vetoed several provisions in the truce proposals (such as the limitation on aliya)". Morris 2008 P. 174

• Baylis: The United States also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade p. 69

  -notes: A lie. " the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce." Morris 2008 P. 173

• Baylis: But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal,. P. 69

  -notes: Misleading. Both Yishuv and Arabs states, accepted parts of the proposal, but not the full one. "United Nations … UN Security Council resolution of 24 April 1948) working in Jerusalem tried to negotiate a truce throughout Palestine or at least in the holy city, but to no avail, despite official Jewish and Arab agreement to many of the proposed clauses. Morris 2008 P. 174

War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, By David Tal, p. 84 "a call by the General Assembly for ‘an immediate and unconditional cease-tire for ten days beginning on 5 may … The Arab representatives were unanimous in their claim that a truce would he accepted only if the Jews gave up their political aspirations… The Jews, on the other hand, rejected the political aspect of the truce proposal, as they resisted any delay in the proclamation of the Jewish State and… (P 85) Unknown to the Americans, Shertok had had second thoughts about the truce. While explaining to the American officials why the Jews should not accept a call for an immediate truce, Shertok implored Ben Gurion to consider a positive reply to the idea… Ben Gurion’s answer was not unequivocal, he did not reject Shertok’s arguments, hut expressed his concern that the acceptance of a ten-day truce would open a gate to the prolongation of the British Mandate.. Bevin had rejected the US proposal for an immediate truce on the grounds that it would require the prolongation of the British mandate Ykantor (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Baylis: But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal, knowing that the local Palestinians and Syrian irregulars were demoralized. P. 69

  -notes: Misleading. The expected enemies were the Arab states armies and not the Palestinians

• Baylis: But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal, knowing that …. Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past the British troops who were now concerned only with leaving Palestine without casualties. p. 69

  -notes: A lie. The British navy strictly enforced the Arms embargo to the last Mandate day. As an exception, 2 arms ships managed to infiltrate to Tel Aviv port during April.  ; " Since April 1948, small deliveries arrived by air and sea from Czechoslovakia and elsewhere and the large influx began after the end of the British mandate." Gelber  ; During the same period, Arab armed forces freely moved across the borders from / to the neighboring Arab states, and the U.K continued to supply the Arabs states armies with weapons and ammunition, until couple of days before the invasion.

• Baylis: The Jews stood firm since a truce would have forced them to accept the UN- drawn boundaries for a Jewish state. P. 70

  -notes: A lie. At that point, the Jews were worried and generally accepted the UN- drawn boundaries for a Jewish state. Later, " By July 1948, Israeli restraint from crossing the UN partition line faded " Gelber

• Baylis: Jewish public sentiment in Palestine was also against a truce, even though it would have prevented an expected outside Arab invasion. The Jews clearly dominated the fighting and were excited about their defeat of local Palestinian and volunteer fighting groups. Spectacular victories in Galilee, the surrender of Arabs in Jaffa and the flight of Arabs from Haifa, all created an atmosphere of enthusiasm and confidence along with much anti-Arab ultranationalistic propaganda. P. 70

  -notes: A lie. the expected Arab Invasion caused the Yishuv to worry. "the Yishuv genuinely perceived the invasion as a threat to its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arab armies’ true lack of military efficiency, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally and prepared for the worst. … in the first month after the invasion the Arab armies enjoyed a considerable superiority in the air, artillery and light armor" Gelber

• notes: Baylis refer to the truce as the main issue, which is misleading. The proposed deferment of a Jewish declaration of statehood, was the main issue for the state dpt. And for the Yishuv.  ; "From the last week of April, the State Department focused on obtaining a deferment of a Jewish declaration of statehood, arguing that the declaration would precipitate an invasion". Morris 2008 p. 174 Ykantor (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of this is just your personal interpretation of the book and the fact you disagree with it. Don't you have anything better to do? A typical example:

Baylis: The United States also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade p. 69
-notes: A lie. " the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce." Morris 2008 P. 173

Here you are confusing "consider[ed]" with "commit", but they are not the same, and "assistance" with "troops", which are very very different. There is no reason at all to supposed that both statements could not be reasonable interpretations of the primary sources. Zero^talk 05:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the 4th or 5th time that Ykantor persists, against warnings, in calling a living author a 'liar'? Does WP:BLP allow this sort of behaviour?Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's pointless answering the screed because it relates to one stretch of text where Baylis is paraphrasing Flapan and Shlaim. On his last point re the lie of Jewish confidence, for example, it's not Baylis, but his source that Ykantor hates:'They(the Jews) seemed oonfident on the basis of recent military successes and the prospect of a "behind the barn" deal with Addullah that they could establish their sovereign state without any necessity of a truce with the Arabs of Palestine."(George Marshall to Bevan cited by Shlaim Collusion p.190, and in Baylis p.77 n.46. Ykantor's trick is to measure patches of B's conclusions or emphases,(sourced based) often screwing up his interpretation of English as he misreads with what either Morris or Gelber say (the truth) and brand the deviance a lie. It's pointless arguing with anyone who doesn't understand method and interpretation. Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

to Zero: yours "Most of this is just your personal interpretation...". So do you agree that some of Baylis points are problematic?

- Is Baylis a RS in your opinion?

- yours: "There is no reason at all to supposed that both statements could not be reasonable interpretations of the primary sources". Where is this primary source?

- "Baylis: The United States also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade". It might be interesting to notice what kind of effective assistance the U.S supposedly offered, which excluded an armed American force. Perhaps the U.S promised to deter the Arab invaders by condemning them?

- As we wish to know what really happened, It is better to verify Baylis suspicious listed points and rather than a claim that strictly speaking, "commit" is not identical to "pledge". Ykantor (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

-To Nishidani: George Marshall assessment, based on a RS (Shlaim) is important and should be added to the relevant article. It is a real time assessment, which might be proven wrong, like the wrong U.S. assessment that the Arab states will win the 1948 war. Nowadays, the historians has an advantage over a real time assessment, since they have access to the old archives. They can read that the Israeli provisional government voted for the establishment of the state of Israel on 12 May 1948. there were 6 proponents against 4 opponents. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Shertok, was initially against the declaration, but at the last minute bowed to Ben Gurion pressure and voted for the declaration. Had he not bowed, the vote would not have been positive.

- In my opinion it proves that the Yishuv leadership was not confident. I am not a RS, and I might be wrong, but a proper Historian should at least mention it together with Marshall assessment. Alas, Baylis is not a proper historian and he always pick the anti Israeli portion, so it is better to avoid citing him. Ykantor (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond generic blather

Let's cut to the chase. The WP:TLDR scrawl above is patently impossible to answer because it would generate, as in the past, a massive thread that gets nowhere. My edit used Baylisthree times

• (a) re Palestine the excepton as an A class mandatory state supported by an excellent secondary source
• (b) Uncontroversially on the Arab rejection of UNSCOP
• (c) on their exclusion from Ad Hoc committee dealing with borders (citing Michael Cohen Palestine and the Great Powers, Princeton University Press, 1982 p.284 cited Baylis p.57 n.6

(a) was challenged re the exceptionality. I provided an excellent source which refined the point Baylis made. (b) Is there anything controversial about Baylis's reportage on Arab rejection of UNSCOP, which all sources report? (c) Does Baylis misconstrue Cohen?Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Baylis a RS in your opinion? What could be the reason to use an inferior source, rather than one of the good sources? Ykantor (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, please answer Nishidani's questions. Your questions deserve respect too but please let's try to keep some focus here. Answer Nish's questions directly and i am sure he will subsequently answer yours. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

all of them, a, b and c are OK. Ykantor (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Then if all of my three uses of Baylis are OK, what's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is better to prefer better sources, if available. I have read somewhere in Wiki, that if the text is correct, it should be easy to find good sources. If it is difficult to find good sources, it might be a warning that the issue is problematic (e.g. the Atlas operation poison story). So why should inferior sources be used ? Is Baylis a RS in your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So the problem is not the information in the article but the use of Baylis to source this...

Ykantor should understand once for all that the Israeli historians don't tell the Truth and the others lie. They all have point of view on different matters. And it is not because they put forward a wrong theory (make a mistake or a misinterpretation) that they become liars.

eg. Benny Morris, my personal reference, a WP:RS, has been heavily criticized for having pictured the '48 war as a religion war (Jihad) in his last book. (See the review by Yoav Gelber: The Jihad that wasn't ; this conference review). He is still WP:RS and he is far from begin a liar just because of this "mistake".

An historian becomes controversial (and even not a liar) when he exagerates in missing main points systematically or puts forward the same baseless theory again and again. Ilan Pappé and Efraim Karsh are -from my point of view- good exemples. But this does not make them liars and this does not prevent them to be used as WP:RS.

On that ground Baylish is even not controversial. He emphasizes some points of view regarding the morale responsability of the war. This is his expertise. For this, he is highly WP:RS. He is not an expert on the events of '48 war or the events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so he may have made some "basic" mistakes ("basis" because I don't see anything relevant here above) and in that sense, he is not a highly WP:RS. He is just WP:RS. So we may use another one but there is nothing critical not to do this.Pluto2012 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

With such commendable lucidity, the objections collapse.Nishidani (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

-Baylis is problematic because of his FACTUAL sentences. e.g.: Baylis: UN military experts shared his appraisal. P. 68 ; Syria was prepared to agree p. 68; accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal p. 69 ; But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal,. P. 69  ; Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past the British troops p. 69 ;

- It was mentioned here that Laurence book has no mistakes. What does he write concerning these factual sentences? Ykantor (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a blog. You have ignored all comments in an apparent desire to blog in illustration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I for one won'ìt respond any more.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

-This is not a blog indeed. We are supposed to look for what really happened, and to ignore propagandist like Baylis.

- There were no comments concerning these specific FACTUAL problems.

-Baylis: "UN military experts shared his appraisal". P. 68 ;

-Baylis: "Syria was prepared to agree" p. 68; He contradicts himself.

-Baylis: "accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal" p. 69 ; There is no source for this mistaken claim.

-Baylis: "But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal",. P. 69  ; Does not even mention that the Palestinians rejected it earlier. Why should Ben Gurion accept a truce when the other side already rejected it?

-Baylis: "Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past the British troops" p. 69 ; Ykantor (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG- Arab snipers

to Dlv999: yours: "There is mountains of specialist academic literature on the topic.Why are we citing primary local Australian press reports from1947".

WP:NEWSORG : "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy." Those Australian newspapers are quoting Reuters, AP, and a London newspaper. It seems that they are acceptable, according to the WP:NEWSORG.

BTW if you know any other wp:rs who discusses these details, UI will appreciate it if you inform me. Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but that is a general Wikipedia source guideline. This is a historical topic and should be based on recent scholarship. Please familiarise yourself with WP:HISTRS. I don't know if any other sources discuss the details. I would say that if the details are discussed in recent scholarship on the topic then they are suitable for inclusion. If the details are not discussed in recent scholarship on the topic they are not suitable for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The suggested WP:HISTRS is an essay and not a policy, hence WP:NEWSORG is overruling it. It is not only a matter of rules, since essays are opened to all editors, and may be contradicting each other. e.g. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Vs. Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Ykantor (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG states that: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context."

News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. The context here is that we have a mountain of published academic literature so I see no reason to be mining primary source news reports. WP:HISTRS represents established best practice regarding sourcing for historical documents. Whenever I have been involved in a WP:RSN discussion on historical topics invariably that document is cited by experienced editors. Dlv999 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes contemporary newspaper are helpful in filling in details of notable events. However, when something is not covered by the vast opus of historical literature one should think of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS. If all those historians didn't think something was worth adding to their books, why should our little encyclopaedia article have it? I'm also concerned that this article is starting to head off-topic. We have lots of articles covering the 1947-8 civil war, let's keep this article focussed on the partition plan. Incidentally, Ykantor, do you have a good excuse for writing "six jews were killed" when the source says that three were killed and three were missing? Zero^talk 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)WP:Primary source. Dlv is right. Please refrain from fossicking in period newspapers for gold from Broken Hill. You are not an historian, and, as noted, this particular period is thoroughly studied by historians. News reports are relevant when we are writing on a subject not yet covered by the academic literature comprehensively, which is not the case here. I suppose for 'balance' we'd have to put in details about the 'Jewish snipers' shooting all over Arab neighbourhoods in Haifa, to encourage the panic. Rbbish. This article is not the place to write the history of the war, as you should know.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

- Concerning notability, it is relevant to report the events of the first couple of weeks after the partition U.N resolution. Moreover, in my opinion, those events are more notable than the lengthy discussion of pressure for / against the plan

- Zero: "when something is not covered by the vast opus of historical literature one should think of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS". It is covered as a generalized description with some details. e.g.

--:"From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948, the Arabs held the initiative and the Haganah was on the strategic defensive. .... Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated ...British military interventions down to mid-March 1948 … British columns repeatedly intervened on the side of attacked Jewish settlements and convoys. And the British regularly supplied escorts to Jewish convoys in troubled areas, such as the road to Jerusalem. " (Morris 2008 p. 77-78)

"the Arabs had, or appeared to have, the edge, especially along the main roads, the lifelines to Jewish West Jerusalem and clusters of isolated settlements. Acting individually, armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods " (Morris 2008 p. 98)

- "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs. Arab snipers continuously fired at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic and planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads. Movement in certain areas and streets became unsafe. From the second week of December, Jewish traffic was organized in convoys, "

- "Side by side with ambushes along the roads, the Husseini - affiliated irregulars turned to large-scale urban terrorism" (Morris 2008 p. 107)

- However, these quotes were repeatedly deleted here, claiming that the source is biased ! (?). These news reports can't be considered as biased, and according to WP:NEWSORG :"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". So I suggest to use them.

- Zero:"let's keep this article focussed on the partition plan.". Sure. the events of the first couple of weeks after the partition U.N resolution are relevant and important.

-Zero: ""six jews were killed" or three? . it might be re written as "some Jews were killed"

- Nishidani: " fossicking in period newspapers for gold from Broken Hill"". As these Australian newspapers quoted respected news sources, then according to WP:NEWSORG: "Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy".

- Nishidani: "'Jewish snipers' shooting all over Arab neighbourhoods in Haifa". Yes, it should be included in the relevant articles.

- in order to have a consensus, I suggest to summarize those events. e.g "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote, large Arab groups attacked Jewish neighborhoods e.g. The Jerusalem new commercial center, Kibutz Efal near Tel Aviv, Hatikva Quarter of Tel Aviv. Arab snipers shot at Jewish Neighborhood (e.g. Bat Yam) and Arab snipers have done there best to make the roads unsafe for Jewish traffic". This summary could cite Morris (see above) and those Australian newspapers using the news agencies. Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Morris' is talking about the period "From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948" and "the fighting in the first months of the war". Somehow this has been changed in your text to "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote". Dlv999 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gevulot incident illustrates the danger of using next-day newspapers for events not observed by the newspapers' journalists. They are very often wrong, which is still true today. History books (including Birth Revisited) and even the PP one day later have a quite different story: 6 Jews from Gevulot were killed while walking near or in the (bedouin, I think) village of Shu'ut. No attack on Gevulot mentioned, nor any connection made to the partition plan. I also want to ask why the Irgun bombings in the same month that killed more than 30 people are not mentioned. Zero^talk 05:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor. You constantly teeter on the edge of WP:OR. The statement you propose, were it valid, and not, as it appears, to be an interpretation from a variety of period newspaper reports, would certainly be in any of the dozens of major studies of that period. Find such a source and you will have no problems. What you appear to be doing is to emphasize that, as the decision was made, only Arabs were doing the shooting. 'The months between November 1947 and israel's Declaration of independence . .witnessed an armed struggle between the Jewish and Arab militia groups for supremacy as the Mandate came to an end and as the British prepared to withdraw. In this context, both sides to the fighting carried out terrorist attacks on each other's civilian population, with Irgun playing a leading role in this regard.' Leonard Weinberg,The End of Terrorism?, Routledge 2012 p.108. In Rubin's chronology we only have, for instance, in the leadup to the decision, a Lehi murder of a Haifa Arab in retaliation for the killing of 5 of their members on November 12, 1947.(Barry M. Rubin,Judith Colp Rubin,Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, M.E. Sharpe 2008 p.181) Given your stated belief that there is only one true version of history (that happens to correspond with the Zionist account) such primary source manipulation will almost invariably meet with opposition. Finding an RS secondary (academic) source for the statement is the only aceptable method: one does not negotiate on WP:SYNTH formulations.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor just refuses to admit : this. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

<outdent>I think we really need a general rule on this; perhaps we should take it to ARBIA clarifications. I first encounter it on Balad al-Sheikh, which was turned into a joke by cherry-picking, do we want all articles to become like that? (ok, that was a loud YES from Ykantor ;-D ..what about the rest of you?)

Bayt Jiz and Khirbat Bayt Far popped up on my "watch"-list recently, when Ykantor added: On 11 January 1948,: Kfar Uriah was attacked by Arabs who came from neighboring Beit Jiz and Khirbet Beit Far.<ref>Morris 2008, p. 102</ref> to both.

Besides the extremely sloppy editing (not wikilinking Kfar Uriah, no defining "Morris 2008," in the Bibliography), these edits are taken totally out of context. Note: the above sentence was all he added. (Also, fascinatingly, they completely contradicts what the -unsourced- Kfar Uriah says…) Morris, 2008, p. 102, tells us that

• A: the attacks arose from "local friction", and
• B: the attackers were "routed" by a Palmach force and and a British armour column, resulting in 25 killed Arabs, and 3 Haganah men killed. (Morris further noted that 13 Haganah men were wounded, one assumes that there were wounded on the Arab side too, but Morris doesn´t count those.)

In Morris, 2004, p 66, he also mentions attack on Kfar Uriah in early January…but there he mentions them as attacks from the newly formed irregular ALA troops, some of them Iraqi or Syrian soldiers and ex-soldiers (who, one presumes, came via somewhere, perhaps Bayt Jiz and Khirbat Bayt Far?). Btw, Bayt Jiz had 550 people total, and Khirbat Bayt Far 300 souls by 1945. How many were men of fighting age, 1 of 5? And if the proportion of wounded vs killed is anything near what it was on the Haganah side…well, if so, then virtually every male of "fighting age" in those two villages came out dead or injured if they alone were behind the attack: the first mass suicide attempt, perhaps?

It could of course both be true; there was local friction, and outside ALA forces came and "helped" the local Palestinians. (Since British forces were involved, I assume there is something about it in British archives somewhere.) However, the text which Ykantor inserted, at least to me, gives the impression the attacker actually were Khirbat Bayt Far and Bayt Jiz men, and not men "passing through" these villages on their way to Kfar Uriah. Also, the text he inserted imply that violence went one way ( "Kfar Uriah was attacked by Arabs")...Ykantor writes nothing about the military might which obviously was present in/by Kfar Uriah. Why not?

I think this careful cherry-picking of violent episodes from one side might qualify for topic ban. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree even if I am not confident in the final result.

Referring to one of your recent comment on WP:AE, I add that Ykantor is an exemple of the newbie you talked about, except that we left this one "growing". At the end he made us lose 1 year with his controversies.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

to DLV999: yours: "Morris' is talking about the period "From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948" and "the fighting in the first months of the war". Somehow this has been changed in your text to "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote"". If it is correct for the whole period of 4 months, it is correct for any period within those 4 months. BTW Since the chapter describes reactions to the partition votes, I limited it for the first couple of weeks only, but it is fine if you want to mention the whole period of 4 months.

- to Zero: Gvulut killings. You are right, the newspaper are not as reliable as RS, and the WP:NEWSORG mentions this risk, but still accept them (e.g. Reuters, AP) as a reliable source. Concerning the Palestine post, Following your previous note that the PP is supposedly biased, I moved to check other sources, but it is a pity that I have not checked the PP.

- Irgun bombing. Initially I included reactions of the first couple of weeks only, but it is fine if we extend the period to the whole month, including of course the Irgun condemned bombing.

- to Nishidani: yours: "Find such a source and you will have no problems". I have done it few times, and it was repeatedly deleted here, but I will try it again.

- yours:"What you appear to be doing is to emphasize that, as the decision was made, only Arabs were doing the shooting". According to Morris, mainly (and not only) the Arabs were shooting during those 4 months. If some editors claim that Morris is supposedly biased, than we might have a look at that their writing / talk is supporting this Morris interpretation. (e.g. General Safwat, Jamal Husseini. Kirkbride as well, who definitely was not pro Jewish).

- yours: "both sides to the fighting carried out terrorist attacks on each other's civilian population, with Irgun playing a leading role in this regard". This is right but it fails to say that most of the attacks were initiated by Arabs. (Again, see General Safwat, Jamal Husseini). Anyway, we can write both opinions in the article.

- As I said few times, both sides acted according to same rational. The Yishuv first priority was an establishment of a Jewish state, so they wanted a calm atmosphere. The Mufti wanted to prevent itby disturbances, repeating the same successful tactics that he have used during the years 1936-1939. -

As later the Israeli army became stronger, the soldiers committed terrible crimes and massacres . I am embarrassed and wonder how come that the Israeli soldiers could commit such horrible crimes. I avoid editing these events. But at the first couple of weeks after the Partition vote, the Arabs started shooting, attacking etc. against the Yishuv who was interested in peaceful environment, at least until the establishment of a Jewish state. Ykantor (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor keeps refusing to admit what is written here and continues with his civil pov pushing.

Pluto2012 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan"

Unfortunately, the "with a few exceptions" clause could give a misleading impression, since all Arab governments and high-ranking or prominent officials and spokesmen who spoke out publicly on the matter rejected the plan, as far as I'm aware. Of course, Abdullah of Transjordan was willing to consider the plan in strictly private and secret discussions (if and only if the Arab state would be annexed to his realm), but that really doesn't count as "acceptance" in any sense relevant to the United Nations process. There was simply no one who could fairly be called a "leader" on the Arab side who publicly accepted the plan, and there's no indication otherwise in the text of the article that I can see. Possible isolated non-official individuals on the Arab side who were possibly sympathetic to the plan can be discussed in detail somewhere in the body of the article, but including the "with a few exceptions" clause in the top of the article would give a misleading impression... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This sentence resulted from a dispute resolution here, initiated by myself. beware, it is rather long. I compromised since it depends what is the definition of an exception, and whether King Abdulah alone is considered an exception. BTW I inserted into the article the surprising view of a Egyptian daily that was an exception among the Arab newspapers, and called for acceptance of the partition plan, because it rightly predicted that a rejection would result in a worst situation for the Arabs. Ykantor (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The great majority of discussion there seems to be about other issues. I'm having difficulty picking out the most relevant parts, but if any specific exception was pointed out with respect to "Arab leaders and governments", then by all means report on that exception here. This same issue was discussed at great length with Harlan.wilkerson (see the talk page archives of this article), and all he could point out was the extremely problematic case of Abdullah of Transjordan, and some comments by a member of the Nashashibi family (which had consistently been on the losing side of almost all power struggles within the Arab community of the Mandate for 20 years or more by 1947). By all means mention the newspaper and the Nashashibi and Abdullah in the body of the article, but they simply don't support adding a "With a few exceptions" clause to the brief summary section at the top of the article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We could write "the majority of Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan" but we cannot go farther because "Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan" would be wrong. The tranjordan's and Nashashibis' exceptions are not anecdotical. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your second sentence is rather hard to follow. However, I'm pretty sure that Abdullah of Transjordan's government rejected the plan also in its official public pronouncements, and the Nashashibis were at a low point in 1947, and certainly had no influence on the decisions of the Arab Higher Committee. Unfortunately, no one has been able to point out any meaningful exception among "Arab leaders and governments". If you don't have any sources pointing out any specific unequivocal exceptions, then the "With a few exceptions" clause would appear to be blatant Original Synthesis... AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Don't want to have to repetitiously grind through basic arguments again and again (something which has proven to be unproductive in past discussions on this page), but the simple fact is that when it comes to public pronouncements from Arab governments and influential/prominent Arab leaders in Nov-Dec 1947, there was a unanimous rejection of the United Nations partition plan. To be able to know about any possible breaks in this surface uniformity, one would have to have access to certain secret diplomatic negotiations, or one would have to listen to some much less influential and prominent Arab voices, which were not an official part of any Arab government. All this means that there is simply no source given on the article page which supports the "with a few exceptions" clause with respect to "Arab leaders and governments", and therefore that wording has to go... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The words "the Arab leaders and governments" implies unanimity. You refer to "some much less influential and prominent Arab voices", a judgement which is (a) subjective (i.e. WP:OR), and (b) contradictory to the unanimity implied by the statement.

Since you want to change consensus here, can you please suggest a form of words which addresses this point? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, it was not "consensus", but rather some kind of truce language which was minimally acceptable to all sides in some previous dispute. Unfortunately for the terms of this truce, the "With a few exceptions" clause is simply not supported by any reputable source when it comes to the public pronouncements of "Arab leaders and governments", and therefore has to go. If you think that the Nashashibis can be fairly counted among "Arab leaders and governments" in 1947, then please provide some source that says so, because the objective indications are that at that point they were mere local notables who had come out on the losing side of a series of power struggles... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Flapan-it is a myth

The issue was already discussed here.

- the article:"Several scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[76][77][78][79][80]".

The second sentence is very well supported, but where are the supports for the 1st sentence? The Yishuv happily accepted the the partition resolution. period. The Zionist leaders have not approved or denied their possible expansionist intentions. Hence, where is the "Myth"? A possible scenario for a "Myth" could have been if the leaders would have promised to end any expansionist plans, but eventually conquer more territory, but that did not happened.

- Ben Gurion was both expansionist and pragmatist. His views were constantly updated in accordance with the situations and with his accumulated experience. On 1934 he told Musa Alami "Ben-Gurion suggested that the Zionists could provide significant help developing the region, Alami replied that he would prefer waiting one hundred years and leaving the land backward, as long as the Palestinians did the job themselves". On 1947-48, he realized that the Arabs would have never accept a Jewish state in Palestine, independently of its size. During the 2nd half of 1948, the Israeli army was stronger then the Arab state armies, and Ben Gurion considered conquering parts of the west bank. He raised the proposal for a formal approval, but lost. Thereafter he used to blame the other ministers for their negative vote. However, he was a shrewd politician and could have assure the right vote by preparing and pressing those ministers in advance. Why he have not prepared it? Some Historians claim that he was afraid of annexing so many Arab citizens to Israel, but preferred to blame others for the "failure".

-In my opinion, if hypothetically the Arabs would have accepted the partition, the both states, the Arab and the Jewish, would have co exist within the planned boundaries. If Israel would have tried to conquer parts of the Arab state, the U.S. would not have allow her, similarly to pressure that Truman applied and forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai in early 1949. Ykantor (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Sinai is easy for Israel to give up, it's a barren desert, the place God trapped them in for 40 years as punishment. Possessing it all was mostly about protecting British interests in the Suez and establishing a buffer against Egypt. But it's not critical. In contrast, the West Bank was the historical location of all the Kingdom of Judea and half the Kingdom of Israel. It is, if anything, more the historical home of the Jews than the land they currently inhabit. Outside of Galilee and the strip connected to Jerusalem, this was mostly the land on the coast, not so good for traditional forms of agriculture, which was consequently the most sparsely populated, easiest to convince someone to sell, and, being near to the sea, easiest to arrive at from a foreign land. The Ancient Jews did not live there for the same reason the indigenous Palestinians did not, for the same reason that the Zionists found it easiest to gain foothold. The Hebrew name for the place, "Judea and Samaria", reflects this historical memory. Pressure from the United States over it cannot be expected to have had as much effect as pressure from the United States over the Sinai. As well, Egypt is a powerful country and regional power and was a critical chess piece in the cold war. The Arab state, in contrast, would've been a geopolitical non-entity. The United States would not have been so eager to pressure Israel in the first place there as it was over the Sinai, there would be less for it to gain.

Also, I doubt an Arab state was ever realistic in the first place. You speak of "the Arabs" as a unified entity. But there were differing objectives among all the members of the Arab alliance, and the Palestinians themselves had no voice in the matter. The objectives of Transjordan, for instance, were clearly to seize control of the West Bank for itself. This was part of King Abdullah I's grand vision, inherited from his father, of forming "Greater Syria". He wouldn't have accepted ceding his gains to an Arab state, and an Arab state without the West Bank, just Galilee and Gaza, would've had no leg to stand on. But he did, in fact, support partition, his goals mainly consisted of stepping in to secure the territory from the 1947 declaration. He only actually fought Israel in the projection they made into that territory to gain control of Jerusalem.108.131.85.137 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If the 2nd part of the sentence is well supported I don't see how the 2nd part would not be either. What's the difference ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Saul+S.+Friedman&go=Go appears: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration ... 20nations%20soviet%20bloc&f false History of the Middle East by Saul S Friedman . ... 87 KB (12,764 words) - 18:57, 9 August 2014 I'm unable to correct; that is, to change "20nations%20soviet%20bloc&f" to the intended text Stuart Filler (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Source: Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948

Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948, Michael J. Cohen, Princeton University Press, 14 Jul 2014:

• pp294: the UN Partition Resolution vote.
• p313: the delay imposed on the arrival of the UN 5-man commission.
• pp333: meetings between Golda Meir and Abdullah.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For my previous semi-attempt to use that book as a source (partially derailed by talknic and partly by the fact that I'm not too good at details of sourcing and don't particularly enjoy it), see Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 3#British handover.2C 1948... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That map (ugly red one of Jewish land ownership)

For the record, the blotches of red on that map are essentially identical in position and shape with the pretty blue and green blotches on Map 4 of the map collection made for the Anglo-American Survey. The original says that the data was "compiled by J. Weitz and Z. Lifshitz on behalf of the Jewish Agency". All the Palestine Arab Refugee Office have added is the armistice lines and DMZs. I could replace it with the AAS map, but actually it is useful to see where the armistice line lay with respect to the land ownership. Zero^talk 23:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if they're "essentially" incidental to some other map. These guys don't say what source they were using. This specific map was produced by a partisan group so it should be attributed. Do you have a problem with this attribution? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The attribution is correct, but also misleading as it invites the reader to infer that this just an Arab claim about land ownership. But it isn't. Also we don't usually attribute images in their captions — maybe we should, but I do notice tons of photos from the IDF archives and similar sources on Wikipedia without attribution except on their image pages at Commons. We should either attribute everything from "partisan sources" or only attribute controversial items (which this map is not). Zero^talk 03:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The source for the underlying data in this map is unclear. It came from a partisan source. I think something like this should be attributed. Feel free to attribute anything else you think should be attributed. I would not at all object to every photo being attributed. There's a big hole in Wikipedia's sourcing policies when it comes to photos in my opinion. Not only there mind you, but anyone can post pretty much whatever photo they like and caption it as they please. The only restriction is copyright. That can't be good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

- The Yishuv purchased lands in forbidden locations (e.g. Bisan valley) as well, using a disguised ownership . Does this map includes those plots as well? Ykantor (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of Jewish owned land shown the Beisan area but the map doesn't indicated when it was purchased. I think it is safe to say that any sales that were being hidden from the British authorities were not on the map. Zero^talk 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the original is available in a few archives: [1], [2], [3]. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A vital information for this article is missing. Help to find the answer.

I know this isn't a forum but this information is rather important and it isn't discussed in this article as far as I am concerned. It should state which state would be contiguous and which state wouldn't since this is important in my opinion. There are two points in which the Arab state seem to divide the Jewish state into a total of three parts. One seems to have a railroad passing through it while the other doesn't even have a direct passage. Can someone explain so I can add some information on this or explain the questions I've mentioned above. Sorry if these are already explained but I couldn't find them.

Thanks anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There were two four-way crossing points, in addition to (in some versions of the plan) the Jaffa enclave. Neither the Jewish nor the Arab state would have been geographically contiguous, and (in part due to deliberate choices by the line-drawers) neither state would have been militarily defensible. AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

recent reverts

Does anyone have access to the source used for "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair..."? Religion in History: Conflict, Conversion and Coexistence page 265? Is there a question that the Arabs rejected any partition of any kind, and getting a bigger or smaller chunk wasn't really the issue? This is mentioned and sourced in the lead. So at minimum the above statement should be attributed (if not removed for fringiness), but I have no idea who wrote the essay or what exactly it says. Also "There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population..." (same source) does not seem to be very clear or very neutral. What is disproportionate here? Proportionate to what?

Also, is procon.org a reliable source? What exactly is it supporting in the text that was removed and restored? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Disproportionate refers to 33-35% of the population, owning 6% of the land in Mandate Palestine being given sovereignty over 56% of the land, hence the right to redefine all the land laws against the will of the land-holding Palestinians who would have ended up within Israel.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Is that from the cited source? Can you post the relevant quote from the book? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani -- those percentages are rather less impressive when the percentage of desert land in the Negev is understood... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Procon.org is a reasonable web site but I don't think it is wiki-citable and it should be replaced. Regarding the book, I can't see p265. However your "Is there a question" question is off-target. There is no contradiction between believing that Palestine belonged to the Arabs and believing that the partition plan was unfair, just as there is no contradiction between Zionist acceptance of the plan and their belief that the whole of Palestine belonged to the Jews. The usual description adopts a false symmetry. For the Arabs the plan moved away from what they believed was just, while for the Jews the plan moved towards it; that's not symmetrical. Zero^talk 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

They thought any partition would be unjust, not just this particular partition. The text implies that they thought 56/44 specifically was unfair. And the ref that was added does not support the text as it currently stands in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I previously posted this on Zero0000's talk page, but posting it here per his suggestion for discussion. I removed the claim that "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair" as the attitudes of the "Zionists" are not sourced, neither are those of the "Palestinians and Arabs", which are presented as having a uniform opinion and rejecting partition because it was "unfair".

These are claims that need to be sourced. This is a section dedicated to Arab reactions, and yet not a single citation in that paragraph leads me to any Arab from 1947 making any of the stated arguments. I don't see how we can claim Arabs thought something "as a rule" and then not quote a single one making any of the arguments presented (i.e. disproportionate land allocations, areas under Jewish control containing 45% of the Palestinian population, etc.) in 1947. Moreover, there is evidence that directly contradicts these arguments (such as Arab leadership rejecting Peel in 1937, despite it giving them 80% of the land, eroding the argument about rejection stemming from unfair land allocation, as this paragraph claims, and indicating a complete rejection of any partition plan, a position which is supported by actual statements from Arab leaders at the time). Until these claims are sourced, they should not be made.

Sammy1857 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The refs currently do not support the text. Moreover, they contradict other sourced text in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The mistake being made by both of you is puerile. You are either removing or adding verification tags to a passage, not because the information in it cannot be sourced (it is) but because you disagree with the language of the paraphrase. 'as a rule always' is a stupid phrase and unnecessary, and an experienced editor would simply have elided this. If there is some datum in the section not covered by the sources given, specify it, and the passage will be fixed with further sources. The basic data are well known to all students of the period.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me try again, although I really don't understand how someone could fail to comprehend the point here - the sources do not support the text in the article which states the Arabs rejected the partition plan because they found the idea of Jews getting a bigger share of the land unfair. None of your sources support this claim because it's simply untrue. They rejected the plan because they rejected partition on general.

Speaking of puerile, do you think adding more and more sources that do not support the text is beneficial to the article? If you continue doing that I will have no choice but to add a failed verification tag after every single one. That won't look good.

By the way, it's a good editing habit to check the article after you make an edit. You failed to properly close the ref you added and now there's large red text pointing that out. You might want to consider scrolling down and having a look after you press save. It only takes a second. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG is correct in saying that the Palestinians would have rejected any partition plan, so the wording should not imply that they rejected it only because of the unfairness of the division. To that extent, I agree with NMMNG. However, the unfairness in Palestinian eyes is not irrelevant, since it was a key feature of the Arab case. As I said before, there is no contradiction here. A statement like "Palestine by right belongs to us but your so-called partition plan gives even more to the Zionists than their numbers suggest." is logically well structured. One needs to report both aspects in order to describe the situation correctly. Incidentally, to Sammy1857: the Zionists also rejected the 1937 plan so that argument doesn't work. What actually happened, see here, was that the Zionist Congress reaffirmed its belief that the Jewish people had a right to everything, including Transjordan, and rejected the plan. Zero^talk 04:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: the Peel partition, while The Congress rejected the Peel Commission's proposed borders for the Jewish state, it empowered its executive to "enter into negotiations with a view to ascertaining the precise terms of His Majesty's Government for the proposed establishment of a Jewish State." The Congress agreed to continue negotiating with the British for more favorable borders and did not reject the idea of partition outright. This was a view pushed forward by the 2 main Zionist leader of the time, Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, who advocated for the use of Peel as a groundwork for future negotiations.

Notably, this has absolutely no bearing on my point, which is that Arab leadership rejected Peel, and that this rejection did not stem from concerns about land allocation within the partition plan, but rather an opposition to partition outright. Zionist acceptance or rejection of Peel is entirely irrelevant to the Arab position, which is what was being discussed.

This goes back to my point regarding commentary on the allocation of land being largely irrelevant (and misleading), as Arab leadership did not reject the plan because the amount of land the Jewish state was given was not perfectly proportional to the Jewish population; rather, they rejected it because they believed partition was inherently unjust, and would have rejected it even if they received the majority of the land, fertile or otherwise, as exemplified by their rejection of Peel.

Sammy1857 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was illogical, I said it was unsourced. Which it still is, despite the growing number of refs at the end of the sentence, none of which support it. If you want to say giving the Jews a larger part or one that included a lot of Arabs or whatever was unfair, I suspect you're going to have to find an observer who said it rather than the Arab leadership. IIRC they put the emphasis on rejecting any kind of partition.

Anyway, since we agree the wording is incorrect do you want to remove the sentence, change it, or what? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A piece of advice about editing wiki. When you have a multiply-sourced sentence or two, and think the sources do not support the statements, you can mechanically tag it, or, alternatively, review the texts and suggest a formulation that reflects the content of the sources. Adopting this latter course means work of course, but it is the constructive way to fix things. I think therefore that the appropriate thing here is for you to propose a rewrite of the text according to what the given sources say.Nishidani (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's good (albeit somewhat obvious) advice. Unfortunately, it can't be applied in every case. For example here, I am at a complete loss as to what you were trying to say with all those refs you added. Wanna clue me in? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Why can't it be applied here? Let me help. Cite the exact words you find unsupported, bolding them, and I'll provide you with a solution.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read this discussion. I explained what the problem is several times. Since Zero has understood and agreed there's a problem, I am confident you too will be able to figure it out. Barring a solution soon, and considering I am unable to apply your sage advice to this situation, I will be removing the unsourced text per WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical, since I didn't expect removalists do ever do anything constructive. I'll leave Zero to express his own views, which, however, I venture to think you miscaracturize (sic) as a warrant for removing a passage as unsourced which is however easily modulated with preexisting sources with a few tweaks. Excision is not what he appears to me to be endorsing, though, as you suggest, I may be misreading. Recapitulating, let me simplify the obvious.

You want sourcing for this:

(a)Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, (b)Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair..."

(a) is sourced to Simha Flapan's thesis as outlined in Sean F. McMahon's book and in Youssef M. Choueiri's book.

(b) reflects what J. Bowyer Bell is quoted as saying in William B. Quandt, Paul Jabber and Ann Mosely Lesch's book: 'In retrospect it is all too easy to point out the Arab blunders, their missed opportunities, their intransigence. It is only just, however, to note that it is easy to urge compromise of another’s principle, to urge someone else to give up half a loaf of his own bread. Surely the Arab argument had much justice. Shorn of biblical quotations, emotional references to the “final solution” and loaded statistics, the Zionist case looked no stronger, and probably somewhat weaker, than the Arab case to disinterested observers. To the Arabs the demand for an Arab Palestine seemed neither novel nor extreme; it seemed just and in accordance with international practice.' ('just' here, unless you don't note it, is an English synonym for 'fair').

Of course one must satify the consumer. If this is not enough, I'll provide two more of a dozen citations which bear on that formulation which troubles you, found in a few minutes googling (what I expect serious wikipedians to do before posting tags on a page, a practice which means:'I'm unhappy with what's been done here, so please do more work to make me feel comfortable') Here's two more sources to help you modulate the sentence you are uneasy with.

‘This proposed partition was seen as unfair by the Palestine Arabs, both because they sought a government for the entirety of Palestine and because they found the particular territorial division unfair for allocating the bulk of the territory to the projected Jewish state, even though Jews were less numerous than Arabs.’(John Quigley, The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, Cambridge University Press, 2012 p.7)

'The Arabs attacked the partition resolution as being unfair and contrary to the UN Charter. They contended that the UN had disregarded the rights of the Arab majority in Palestine by giving the Palestine Jews, then representing one-third of the total population, more territory and resources than those allotted to the Arab state and by relegating well over 400,000 Arabs to minority status in the Jewish State.' Fred J. Khoury, ‘United States Peace Efforts’, in Malcolm H. Kerr (ed.) Elusive Peace in the Middle East, SUNY Press 1975 pp.21-22

If anything, what was unsatisfactory in the formulation, apart from the dumb English of 'as a rule always reiterated' which triplicates the same concept by plethoric synonyms, was the neglect to mention that one of the primary Arab/Palestinian complaints was that the Partition Plan violated the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Otherwise, even the phrasing I object to, 'as a rule always reiterated' can find textual support.

'The Arab delegates to the General Assembly, while opposing the very principle of partition, repeatedly maintained that the terms of the partition proposed by UNSCOP were manifestly unfair to the Arab side, because the Jews, who represented only one-third of the country’s population, would receive a disproportionate part of its territory, more than 50 per cent,’ Alexander Yakobson, ‎Amnon Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish Nation-state and Human Rights, Taylor & Francis, 2009 p.19.

That's the gist that several minutes of googling trawled this morning, after I asked you to actually look at some books to find a creative solution to the quibble, rather than express disgruntlement. Now that I've done your homework, perhaps you could review the sources already in the text, take on board those now added here, and suggest a remodulation of the sentence. It's not hard. Zero no doubt will have his own suggestions, and I'd happily defer to any solution of the kind suggested here, or, more probably, one of his own. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. After having to ask less than two dozen times (or as you'd probably put it, "several dozen" times) at last a source that supports the unsourced part of the sentence, although none of them support the "A however B" formulation. Please be careful not to SYNTH what Rubinstein says about the Arabs objecting to any partition in principle and also this specific plan in particular, with what "Zionists" attributed to them. I agree that their finding it contrary to UN principles should be noted. As it happens, it's noted 3 times in this article. One of which is a couple paragraphs above the text we're discussing. Feel free to combine it with this text if you think that makes more sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, my impression is you are being silly, awesome hairsplitting to get someone else to alter a few words in a sentence otherwise amply sourceable, while refusing to say how you would construct that sentence. I'm not here at your beck. The simplest thing to do here, since you refuse to pull your own finger out and make a nugatory but constructive suggestion as to how to adjust a word or two, is ask for third parties to review the point. Otherwise the sentence stands, not quite satisfactory, but thus because you won't do the obvious edit. Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition". This sentence, appears in the article and is a result of a compromise in a wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We didn't change that. As Zero correctly noted, you can reject the whole thing while still saying this specific plan is unfair. My objection was to the wording that implied they rejected it only because of the specific land percentages (and the fact it wasn't sourced. And the way it was SYNTHyly connected to the previous sentence). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Final vote section rearrangment

Is there a reason to have the list divided by regions? Wouldn't such thing will be better:

Country	Vote
Bolivia	In favor
Afghanistan	Against
United Kingdom	Abstentined
Thailand	Absent

--Bolter21 18:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Change from agenda to resolution

In the UN's records, this resolution, "Future government of Palestine : resolution", was part of the agenda item "A/329 22 - Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the recognition of its independence as one State." The eventual resolution, which was adopted after voting, did call for a "Plan of Partition with Economic Union" but it shows how the recommendation apparently changed substantially during the working stages. Worth mentioning in the article? 50.135.249.113 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Same as above. If you find a secondary source that talks about this, it's worth mentionning. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Compensation

Resolution 181, available on the UN website http://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/quick/regular/2 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm , says in Chapter 2 paragraph 8, that, "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession." Is there any evidence that there were plans to compensate those who were displaced? *This discussion was also started at Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Compensation, but as this article is the redirect for Resolution 181 it seems appropriate to mention in this article as well. You could, if you ignored lots of evidence, argue that Palestinians who were displaced somehow lost their right to compensation by fighting (despite that many who were displaced did not fight, just as in the current Syrian conflict, most refugees did not fight), but this resolution predates the rather limited fighting of the 1948 war. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is an interesting question (really) but I never heard about this.

I am not a reference and don't know everything but anyway this makes me think it is a kind of WP:OR.

If you find a scholar that analysed this and disussed this, it's worth mentionning anyway.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

50.135.249.113 -- Compensation would only apply if the agreement had been agreed to by both sides and had come into force, and then in cases of eminent domain. It would take some pretty special lawyering for the Arabs to reject the agreement, and then claim that they should be compensated as if it had come into force (which it didn't)! Under that reasoning, the Jews would have a much better case to be compensated for expulsion from Gush Etzion (since the Jews agreed to the partition plan). In any case, Arab governments vocally rejected, on behalf of the refugees, any possible Israeli compensation which could be interpreted as giving up a right to return... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jewish sovereignty or territorial division?

Source added says "The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine." They refused the establishment of a Jewish state not of a Jewish presence. For example, in "What Price Israel?" Alfred Lilienthal says that the Arabs did not oppose a unified state built on cantons. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Which source are you talking about? The source in the article is 1948 by Benny Morris, page 66. It says The league demanded independence for Palestine as a "unitary" state with an Arab majority and minority rights for Jews. The AHC went one better and insisted that the proportion of Jews to Arabs in the unitary state should stand at one to six, meaning that only Jews who lived in Palestine before the British Mandate be eligible for citizenship. There are plenty of other sources that say they rejected any kind of partition or "territorial division" as the article said before you changed it, including apparently, the source you mention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about the quote in the source used to support the claim in the article... They refused any territorial division that gives Jewish sovereignty. I hope page 66 doesn't talk about Arab demands during a meeting/response to a plan, rather than their overall/final stance. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

When you said "per source" in your edit summary, which source were you talking about? I was looking at page 66 in Morris, which is apparently the previous ref but still relevant. Page 73 says All paid lip service to Arab unity and the Palestine Arab cause, and all opposed partition. So it also supports the statement they refused any kind of division. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the source used in the article supporting the claim which is Morris page 73 where you started quoting "lip service", continue reading to see "The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine." which was what I was referring to. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So you're cherry picking one sentence from a source I have a feeling you haven't actually read a complete page of? Nice. I think we actually had this discussion in the past, but let's wait for a couple more opinions. Meanwhile, per BRD, please leave the longstanding version in place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That depends on how we define division/partition, as separate sovereignties or separate areas. But its tricky since it might be considered OR, so the long standing version "territorial division" is sort of vague and needs elaborating as its slightly misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120610173759/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120610173759/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120610173759/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5v5sZ1pPb to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FDF734EB76C39D6385256C4C004CDBA7
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120610173759/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716143235/http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf to http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reactions to the vote

In the section for reactions of "Arabs in Palestine", there is a stand-alone sentence citing Tom Segev:

The Arabs promised to respect the rights of the Jewish minority.^[132]

The citation is correctly attributed, though Segev made this statement only incidentally while discussing reaction to the partition plan and the desire for Arab independence in all of Palestine.

Yet above, in the section "Reports of pressure against the plan", several Arab leaders are quoted as threatening or promising violence against Jews:

• Jamal Husseini - "blood will flow" (could be ambiguous, but it's likely he meant Jewish blood)
• Nuri al-Said
• Muhammad Hussein Heykal Pasha
• Mahmoud Bey Fawzi - "bloodshed in Palestine" (again, could be ambiguous, but likely Jewish)
• Fadel Jamall

And in the "Reactions" section, under "Arab States", the following Arab leaders spoke of violence against Jews:

• Azzam Pasha
• Shukri al-Quwatli
• King Farouk

And in the section where the Segev citation itself occurs, "Arabs in Palestine", Haj Amin al-Husseini threatens violence, and there are reports of actual violence occurring, on 2 December (1948) to "Jewish passersby", and on 4 December in an attack on kibbutz Efal.

I think that the sentence/paragraph quoted stands in disagreement, or certainly out of context, with the rest of this article and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.18 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Both sides expected war. Both sides knew that war means 'blood will flow'.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

162.129.44.18 -- Occasionally when speaking to an international audience (i.e. non-Arabs), some Arab spokesmen made high-minded declarations about how Jewish rights would be respected as a minority within a future Arab-governed state of Palestine, but such spokesmen generally didn't bother to explain that such protections would likely have applied only to "pre-Zionist" Jews, while most later-arrived Jews would likely have been expelled (an equivocation or deception of propaganda that often continued to be practiced right into the 1980s). Very few Jews set much faith in such protections, not only because of historical precedent (Iraq celebrating its independence with the Assyrian massacre etc.), but also because of the radically divergent bloodthirsty rhetoric which the Arabs commonly used when talking among themselves...

Nishidani -- are you trying to create an excuse for wannabe-genocidal "throw the Jews into the sea" type rhetoric? Jingoistic rhetoric is common in wars, but promises to completely and utterly destroy the enemy's existence as any kind of settled community are not too common in modern warfare (as opposed to medieval Mongol invasions and Nazi expansionism)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231000442/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/49e8cf7b046bf55b85256a7200671a8e/%24FILE/gapal83.pdf to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/49e8cf7b046bf55b85256a7200671a8e/%24FILE/gapal83.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016084808/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603150222/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124212115/http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif to http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External link no longer available:

A link from the "Arabs in Palestine" under "Arabs" under "Reactions" links to a webpage that is no longer online.

"The Arabs promised to respect the rights of the Jewish minority.[131]" 131 as of now links to http://www.passia.org/seminars/2000/israel/part3.html Therefore, I recommend using the wayback machine's archive of that URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20170212173850/http://www.passia.org/seminars/2000/israel/part3.html

--199.203.63.223 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Good call, done. Uglemat (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

There should be mention of the controversy surrounding the passing of the partition plan in the lead, aka, the United States exploit of power and resources to rally votes for the plan. "What Price Israel?" gives a detailed look into this aspect. From content in Reports of pressure for and against the Plan sub section. Arab efforts too ofcourse. But can someone please look at that Arab section? Its a bribery attempt and a bunch of quotes lacking commentary .Makeandtoss (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

By what criteria do you think What Price Israel is RS per Wikipedia policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Who said I did? I have read this book, its not quite neutral. However, it has some exclusive insight; interviews with the delegations involved in the voting of the plan. If I search, I am sure I will find RS sources that discuss this. As for now, I am only pointing out that they exist. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "There is also some evidence that Sam Zemurray put pressure on several banana republics to change their votes.[83]" in the part about pressures is not clear. Who is this guy and what does "banana republic" mean? I suggest explaining the relevance and meaning of the sentence or crossing it out.--HeloPait (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A "banana republic" is a South American or Caribbean state who's economy is/was based almost entirely on the export of bananas. The phrase came to be used for any inconsequential and possibly corrupt country and its government, often ruled by a dictator.

These states had a full UN vote, and so the phrase was a derogatory one, meaning that the state's UN vote could often be bought or otherwise influenced, e.g., by 'aid', etc., by other more developed countries, especially the ones that were the "banana republic"'s main export customers for their bananas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Central Committee of the Histadrut (the Eretz Israel Workers Party

the Central Committee of the Histadrut is not the Eretz Israel Workers Party. 144.41.3.21 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FDF734EB76C39D6385256C4C004CDBA7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604233639/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1679.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1679.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308151232/http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/unscop.html to http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/unscop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Two inaccurate external links

The external link "Legal Status of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem" leads to http://www.globalpolitician.com, a homepage, not a specific internal page.

The external link "Maps of Palestine" links to a "not found" URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.85.13 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

"o-tday" = "today" 2605:E000:9149:A600:4FA:4BF3:9CBC:D92A (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 2021-05-20

Typo: supportd -> support under Reactions: Arab states

TheForgottenKing (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Zero^talk 05:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

Wrong map (Chart) of countries voting - Not coinciding with data displayed 2A00:A040:195:EFFC:6DA8:DA0:C9AC:42AE (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Or at least give one example of a country that is not colored correctly? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Marking request as answered pending user input per template. —Sirdog (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert

An editor has reverted/deleted a scholarly source (Routlege) in favor of uncited editorialized material not even relevant to the partition plan with edit summary "The lede: Even if Routledge is right that a nascent Israel already existed insome form or another, that is not what he said.". This article is not for reporting what Ben Gurion said in the Declaration of Independence, he said a lot of things (as did the written declaration), that's why there is a separate article for it and all we need to do here is wikilink it. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are proposing that the whole of the last sentence in the lede be deleted, I agree Trahelliven (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed (ie restore the long standing version). Done. Selfstudier (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Direct UN source for the Feb 1947 date for the referral to the UN

"The United Nations took up the question of Palestine in February 1947, on the request of Great Britain" at https://unispal.un.org/dpa/dpr/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D442111E70E417E3802564740045A309 I can not add the citation because the page is protected? Can someone please add it? Annette Maon (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is already cited to secondary source at the second sentence of United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) section? Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Which one is more reliable? If you consider the UN to be a primary source, would it hurt to have both? Annette Maon (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt, if it is already cited no need for another to confirm a straightforward fact.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would use both. The UN document doesn't just confirm what the secondary source says, it provides all the official details. Zero^talk 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: Second ref is added. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

this one has been deleted as well

https://web.archive.org/web/20131231000442/https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/49e8cf7b046bf55b85256a7200671a8e/$FILE/gapal83.pdf It contains the very important statement of Heykal Pacha.

It was deleted because nou found directly. Should be added also here : Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world… to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews." Mahmud Bey Fawzi (Egypt) said: "… imposed partition was sure to result in bloodshed in Palestine and in the rest of the Arab world".[94] 2A02:A03F:6AF4:4200:6CB9:345:AC83:EB85 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand this request. The document is a primary source so in general needs a secondary for its interpretation. Are you saying that a quotation should be added to the article? Where? There is an article Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question which is where the document comes from, why would it not be added there? Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Zionists accepted the proposal POV

Although this may be literally true, it does not speak to intention. The Birth of Israel:Myths and Realities, Israeli historian Simha Flapan calls the below a myth:

"Zionist acceptance of the United Nations Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947, was a far-reaching compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned the concept of a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine and recognized the right of the Palestinians to their own state. Israel accepted this sacrifice because it anticipated the implementation of the resolution in peace and cooperation with the Palestinians."

and points, for example, to Ben Gurion "Addressing the Zionist Executive, he again emphasized the tactical nature of his support for partition and his assumption that ".after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

I think the rejection/acceptance narrative as presented (relying on Morris) is too simplistic.

Thoughts? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That quote from Flapan certainly makes it sound simplistic, and that presentation of the views of Ben Gurion certainly sounds in line with his Machiavellian realpolitik. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that this BG quotation is from 1937 in response to the Peel Commission partition recommendation. To show that BG held the same opinion in 1947 more evidence is needed (though I believe such evidence exists). Zero^talk 01:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish community of Palestine was largely not enthusiastic about some features of the partition plan, and there was a certain element of political tactics in the community's acceptance of the plan, knowing that the Jews would receive positive publicity for being reasonable in the eyes of much of the world, while Arab absolutist negativism would mean that the plan would be very unlikely to be implemented as written (economic union between Jewish and Arab states was an essential part of the plan, etc). However, this is different from saying that the Jewish community's acceptance of the plan was dishonest or deceptive. AnonMoos (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, there is the section United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#Jews where some relevant material is sourced but not really reflected in the lead.

The full para from Morris conclusions is

"The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal. Most lamented the imperative of giving up the historic heartland of Judaism, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), with East Jerusalem's Old City and Temple Mount at its core; and many were troubled by the inclusion in the prospective Jewish state of a large Arab minority. But the movement, with Ben-Gurion and Weizmann at the helm, said "yes"".

and in the lead we have

"The partition plan was accepted by Jewish Agency for Palestine and by most Zionist factions; only the fringes expressed dissatisfaction over territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State".

Note that accepted except for a fringe has been rendered as only a fringe complaining about territorial limits, which is not actually what the source says. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that needs to be fixed, but it has nothing to do with the acceptance being dishonest or deceptive. The Jewish community weighed the things they disliked about the plan versus the things they liked about the plan (i.e. the recognition of Jewish territorial sovereignty to a much greater degree, and within far more expansive boundaries, than the Peel plan, to be ratified by the international community through a formal public UN General Assembly vote), and they generally decided to accept the plan. In the minds of some individuals, there was a certain accompanying "political jiu-jitsu" (using the Arabs' extremely predictable intransigence to the ultimate benefit of the Jewish community), but that's not the same as cynical dishonesty. AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The views of Ben Gurion as presented above by Flapan suggest a little more than that. Accepting partition only with the intent of abolishing partition would be a little more than jiu-jitsu... Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The private views of David Ben Gurion in 1937 are not the same as the Jewish community's overall motivations in 1948. AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course not but Flapan thinks it is relevant although not in isolation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the Yishuv was that Ben Gurion alone, or Ben Gurion and a small cadre, simply could not have pushed through something major (like acceptance of Partition) if the majority of Jews had opposed it. So if Ben Gurion and a small cadre had additional reasons for supporting the acceptance of Partition, which they couldn't make public, then that means that such additional reasons were irrelevant to the deliberations and motives of the larger Jewish community in arriving at a quasi-consensus in support of the acceptance of Partition. Ben Gurion's private Machiavellianism cannot reasonably poison the motives of the whole community. AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

But it wasn't private, since the assertion above is that he made these thoughts abundantly clear to the wider Zionist executive. And who said anything about poisoning motives. If the demos in question at the time was anything like your typical demos, the majority will have simply gone along with whichever line of political bullshit they most liked the taste of. Democracy is the guileful leading the blind, so if Ben Gurion and the rest of the Zionist executive said: jump! They would have have said: how high? Iskandar323 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You're quite ignorant of the nature of the Jewish community in the British mandate, which held vigorously-contested elections in 1920, 1925, 1931, and 1944. There were also Histadrut elections, which could also be vigorously contested, but I don't feel like researching them now. Your personal political philosophy is rather unattractive, and also quite irrelevant here... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Leave out the personal attacks and the personal opinions please. Stick to sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to reproach someone for intruding personal opinions of no relevance into this discussion, you should start with Iskandar323. AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, we should have a look at all sources to see what other scholars have said about it and go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an issue around here of what "accept" means. In 1937, BG tried (unsuccessfully) to convince the Zionist Congress to "accept" the partition plan, while at the same time making it known to the inner circle that he saw it only as a step towards a more expansive goal. The word "accept" does not cover the facts, but instead covers them up. Similarly, in 1948 the Yishuv leadership "accepted" the partition plan but by the time the Arab armies invaded they had already occupied a large part of the proposed Palestinian state with no intention of giving it back. The solution, as usual, is to spell out the facts explicitly. Zero^talk 03:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

In 1947 the Jewish community accepted the plan provided it would be implemented with the economic union which was necessary to the plan, and so on. They did NOT make any unconditional commitment to be bound by the terms of the partition plan when the Arabs were not bound by such terms, and were clearly preparing to destroy them by military force. Such a unilateral unconditional commitment would have been very stupid, and guaranteed a quick defeat (since the proposed partition boundaries were in part chosen to be militarily indefensible). I don't know why you try to raise such a possibility, when it was irrelevant to the actual unfolding of events. AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It was obvious to everyone, including the Yishuv leadership, that there would be no Arab acceptance of the partition plan. So what you are saying is that Jewish "acceptance" was just a formality contingent on non-existent events. That is, acceptance of the legal principle but non-acceptance of the details, in particular non-acceptance of the territorial limits. "Would-have-accepted" is different from "accepted". This is emphasised by the well-documented fact that the Provisional Government decided after a debate to invoke the partition resolution in the Declaration of Independence but not to invoke the borders it prescribed. Zero^talk 03:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was a basic contingency in the 1947 Partition plan as passed by the United Nations -- the plan could only come into effect as written if both sides agreed to it, and the economic union (which was an essential part of the plan) was implemented, etc. This contingency of the original plan had nothing to do with the nature of the Jewish acceptance. Expecting the Jews to restrict themselves to the indefensible partition plan borders when the Arabs had torn up the partition plan and Arab armies were imminently about to invade, is ridiculous, and the refusal of the Jews to commit suicide in such an absurd manner does not imply any bad faith on their part in their acceptance of the partition plan. (Other things might imply such bad faith, but what has been turned up in this thread so far is underwhelming.) AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps so, what we need though are sources that agree with your analysis. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

p.193 Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond David McDowall 1990 I.B. Tauris ISBN 13:9780755612581 Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

And...? AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

And what? If you have nothing to say, say nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

To go the extra mile and clarify what should not actually require clarification, there's a difference between dishonest acceptance (saying you accept the plan, but intending to violate its terms regardless of what happens), contingency planning (figuring out what your best course of action is in the likely event that the plan does not come into force), and blameless self-survival tactics (doing what's necessary to ensure your continued existence when the Arabs have torn up the plan and invasions by Arab armies are imminent). You don't seem to distinguish between the first two (and import 1937 stuff into 1947), while Zero0000 refuses to distinguish between any of the three... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Repetition is also not useful. I am still concerned primarily with the reason I opened this discussion ie how to fix the POV in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations Persistent Analytics and Practices Sean F. McMahonRoutledge 2010

"Ben-Gurion was not alone in his tactical acceptance of partition. Prophetically, Chaim Weizmann told the British High Commissioner in 1937 that '[w]e shall expand in the whole of the country in the course of time … this [partition] is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.' Weizmann was exactly right—by 1967 Israel had taken control of all of mandate Palestine.

This ideational trend continued and was realized in the 1940s. The Zionist movement also accepted the UN partition plan of 1947 tactically. Palumbo notes that '[t]he Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country.' Similarly, Flapan states that '[Zionist] acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country [Palestine]'and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction—a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious.” Plan D and the War of 1948–1949 created such judicious circumstances for expansion of Israel beyond the borders demarcated by the UN partition resolution. According to Flapan, the Zionist movement “exploited military conflicts for territorial gains.” By the conclusion of Plan D and the War of 1948-1949 these gains amounted to an additional 2,500 square miles or the equivalent of another 20% of mandate Palestine. The practical realization of the Zionist idea of territorial maximization resulted in Israel controlling 75 per cent of what was mandate Palestine by 1949."

"Tactical acceptance", that's a possibility. Many authors see the acceptance as just a step en route to the acquisition of further territory.(Baruch Kimmerling - Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."). Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Source for Nuri al Said quote

The quote "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, said: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in" appears to be fallacious. Mcdruid (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Basis? This has attestable sources dating as far back to the 1970s. (See: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#"Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanationMistamystery (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It was cited to a novelist and is now gone. Zero^talk 08:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There may be many repetitions of it, but there are no reliable sources. Mcdruid (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Grey areas of UN voting map

Grey for "no UN member in 1947" should be added to the color code of the map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#/media/File:UNGA_181_Map.png

This relates to most still colonies in Africa, but also to West and East Germany who become members much later. 89.247.171.167 (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Email summons

For the second time this week, I received a behind-the-scenes e-mail asking me to act as a ghost on Wikipedia. This time, the e-mail came from User:Geosword6 at 1:43 UTC. The subject of the e-mail is: UN Partition Plan - re-writting history to hide the fact that Jews accepted." The body of the e-mail is: Hi. Could you revert this shitty addition?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&diff=1181080021&oldid=1181078831 It's only supported by a very biased source in article (an anti-Israel activist), but mainstream historians like Benny Morris are quoted in article saying otherwise: "The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal" I don't know why I was selected to receive this message, but as I said last time, I believe strongly in transparency on Wikipedia, and I believe that discussions should happen in the open where everyone else can see who said and did what. The edit Geosword6 apparently wants reverted was made by Selfstudier. Hopefully you guys can figure it out by open and honest collaboration and without resorting to proxies.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore: The user has now been blocked as a sock; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim#22_October_2023. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A sentence without sources and not neutral

"The partition plan was accepted by Jewish Agency for Palestine and most Zionist factions who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time". I read the two sources that were added. They dont have the part of "who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time". For example, "The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State. The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They said that the Assembly had endorsed the plan under circumstances unworthy of the United Nations and that the Arabs of Palestine would oppose any scheme that provided for the dissection, segregation or partition of their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority". At this source there are not any mention of "who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time". This is a hypothesis or a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.55.182.54 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Per section above , "Palumbo notes that '[t]he Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country.' Similarly, Flapan states that '[Zionist] acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country [Palestine]'and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction—a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious.” Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is the source? I don’t see it in the two links provided next to the sentence in question. Neither is Palumbo or Flapan. Mistamystery (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

See the archives, this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine/Archive_9#Zionists_accepted_the_proposal_POV.

Btw did you receive an email like the one mentioned in the below section Email summons? Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Percentage discrepancy, and the Math isn't mathing

In the lead it says, "The proposed plan is considered to have been pro-Zionist by its detractors, with 62% of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish population." The citation is an article that costs $50 to access.

The discrepancy I noticed is in the body it says:

"The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine... The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land [I believe the Wiki editor meant that the Jews already owned 7% of the land through purchases], was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there."

I was able to verify one of the body' sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20130807084246/http://merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/un-partition-plan-pal-isr.html but there might be a typo in the source because 43%+56%=99%, but it doesn't equal 100%.

And then in this source from Al Jazeera it says: "Following the end of WWII, the newly formed United Nations proposed a plan that would grant 55 percent of historic Palestine to a Jewish state and 45 percent to a non-contiguous Arab one. Jerusalem would remain under international control."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/26/palestine-and-israel-mapping-an-annexation

So the number in the body of the Wiki article is closer to the Al Jazeera numbers, and I was wondering if the 62% in the lead should be changed to 56%? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The cite in the lead has a quote attached to it, confirming that it says 62%, was there something else from it that you wanted quoted?

I will take a look at this a bit later and see whether it is possible to reconcile the sources in some fashion, unless someone else does it first. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, just confused about the number discrepancy and wanted to double check. Oh yes, you’re right, the referenced quote does say 62 percent. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A scout around the web has several sources including the BBC saying it gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem.

If no-one objects I am going to go with that for the article? Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that’s good. Thank you so much! I was confused because I was hearing / reading other sources give different numbers than the 62 percent. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait. What is the percentage for the international enclave? The Jewish and Arab sections are not supposed to add up to 100%Mistamystery (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the numbers Selfstudier found make the most sense. I think the 43%+56%=99% didn't add up to 100% because of the rounding! They dropped the decimals. I wanted to see what the original source in the lead says (the 62%) because I believe the opinion author might have made an error. My guess, is because the Jewish population already owned 6-8% of the land through purchases, I suspect the author added 6% + 56% = 62%, and mistakenly thought the plan would give an addition 56% to the Jewish population instead of understanding that the total amount of land for Jews would be 56%. I will update the lead with the BBC source. Thanks! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am still looking for a more concrete explanation, idk whether the Jerusalem area (186km^2 or 0.5%?) is just excluded from the BBC calculation. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Does anyone have eyes on the size of the corpus separatum? Mistamystery (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, but my understanding was that Jerusalem was to be a shared international city for 10 years, and then after 10 years they would decide. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonexistent stipend

To editor Wh15tL3D09N: Please remove your sentence added here. The partition resolution did not specify a payment from the Jewish state to the Arab state. You can read the complete resolution here. The closest match, in Chapter 4, Item 14, does not support your text. You are also incorrect in stating that the alleged stipend is mentioned in the Background section. That mention is in reference to the partition plan of the 1937 Peel Commission (Chapter XXII, paragraph 23; no amount is specified). Zero^talk 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have self reverted. Thanks for educating. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish celebration

@Dovidroth: The source you added does not support the claim that "most Jews in Palestine" celebrated the partition plan? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)