Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 1

Disputes

Ed, you are playing with fire again. Your history here is mistaken in several important points, and most of all the article is not NPOV. The Mandate system was a means of dispensing with the colonial territories of defeated powers after World War I. Independence was offered by Britain twice: once to the Arabs, once to the Jews. It was part of a larger partition scheme of the Ottoman Empire, and included Syria and Lebanon (which went to France). Of course, there is also the colonial question: what right does a colonial power have to determine the future of land it occupies. I am curious as to the source for Jordan being called Palestine. In general, fix this up or revert, but as the article is now, it is inaccurate and cannot stay like that. Danny

Thanks for pointing out the historical inaccuracies and for the NPOV warning. --Ed

Ed, a reasonable suggestion. Please spend some time researching the issues here before cutting and pasting bits and pieces of encyclopedia articles. It is making a joke out of a topic that is of life-and-death importance for both Palestinians and Israelis. Danny

I have moved into this article some history from another article, because I think it serves readers better here. This article is linked by 8 or 9 other articles. I never would have found it if I hadn't been trying to create it.

I have removed my speculation about Palestinian homeland and Jordan, as on reflection it seems to be entirely my own POV. Ed Poor

Merged?

The page is currently being Merged (most of the material coming from over Palestine), I expect to finish it within 12-24 hours. --Uri

Moved above note. --Ed Poor 14:14 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

The duplication here with 1947 UN Partition Plan displeases me. Martin

Palestine vs Transjordan

I rewrote the part about Palestine versus Transjordan to make it more accurate and (I hope) less POV. Many other parts of the article need corrective surgery and I'll get to that eventually. -- zero UTC 16:00 July 26 2003.

Holocaust section

Sorry to whoever was editing the "Holocaust" section at the same time as I was rewriting it. I think my version is more detailed and more accurate. -- zero UTC 10:54 Aug 4 2003.

felaheen

The Palestinians had prior to World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. - I would like to see a reference for this because I have read many history books on this subject and never heard about this issue of ownership of trees. In fact land sales were regulated by the British authorities who followed the Ottoman laws except in some cases where they ammended them to give the authorities more power. This article needs a section describing the land tenure issue in more detail, since it was one of the key causes of conflict during the mandate. I put it on my (long) list of things to do. -- zero UTC 13:55 7 Aug 2003.

British and Germans

Zero0000 added "The British authorities were also paranoid about the possibility of German agents entering Palestine, though there is apparently not a single known example."

I am not disputing this addition at all, but I am flabbergasted. I had no idea that the British had any such concerns. Also, their thinking seems illogical. Palestine wasn't that hard for an individual or three to get into; putting spies in with Jewish immigrants seems so unncessary. Since the British stopped legal Jewish immigration...wouldn't the presumed German spies simply buy a train and boat ticket on their own, and travel into the country individually? I can't imagine how the British thought that this would stop the presumed (and non-existent) German infilitration. That's crazy. As Charlton Heston said in Planet of the Apes "Its a madhouse, a madhouse!" RK 13:36, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is important enough to put in the article but I thought it was interesting. There was some senior official in London who wrote memo after memo on it. One reason for the paranoia was that most of the refugee boats up until Germany reversed its emigration policy (1940? 1941?) were organised with German cooperation. By "not a single example" I meant that no German spy is known to have come to Palestine in a refugee boat. However, they couldn't come directly either (there was a war on and nobody from an Axis country was admitted readily). Probably over the border from Vichy Syria would have been the best shot. I bet there were actually many such spies in Palestine as Germany was planning to invade the place. --zero 15:04, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mandate document and Britain's actions

I have just read the League of Nations document creating the Mandate for the first time. I did not know that the Preamble and Article 2 (Article 1 confers powers upon the Mandatory Power, Great Britain) well...the Preamble says (in part): well better to read it yourself and Article 2 says: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." Which reads that Britain is required to create a Jewish nation home with civil and religious rights for all inhabitants. Sounds like create a democracy, as one is understood in the West. Goodness! The Brits succeeded in fulfilling the Mandate in spite of themselves! What we have now is rather wishy-washy on the central purpose of the Mandate. Should the stated purpose of the Mandate be stated explicitly on the page British Mandate of Palestine? OneVoice 23:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Self-determination doesn't imply democracy (at least, as known in the US). Monarchy and other forms of government also qualify (as happened under the Transjordan mandate). Remember the deliberate ambiguity and Britain disclaiming an intent to have an independent Jewish state. Britain didn't succeed in fulfilling the mandate - we don't today have a single country of Palestine with Jews and Arabs living together with safeguarded civil and religous rights. Jamesday 14:16, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jamesday, you are right that "we don't today have a single country of Palestine with Jews and Arabs living together with safeguarded civil and religous rights." But such might be rather easy to obtain. Should the Palestinians call for the annexnation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to Israel and Israeli citizenship for all Arabs living within these new boundaries of Israel, we would have that situation but for the name of the country. Given the number of Arabs and the democratic nature of Israel's government "safeguarded civil and religous rights" would follow within a generation, if not less. At times, one wonders why the Arabs do not pursue such a policy as the easiest method of obtaining their goals. OneVoice 11:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That single state would have an Arab majority, so it's probably not a solution which can happen, because Israel wouldn't accept it in the near future. Israel already has a massive problem in its future, for even with no changes it appears that it will have an Arab majority in a few decades. One of the more troubling long term questions is whether Israel will use an apartheid system to avoid that Arab voting majority or not. Ultimately, unless there's a pogrom or forced exodus of more Arabs from Israel, it will have an Arab majority, so something needs to be done and the best something is a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian Arab neighbor and time for tensions to fall. Seems very unlikely that Likud will achieve that result, though Labor might. Jamesday 04:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

JamesDay, I dont feel that its my place to advocate one solution or path over another. I am not an actor on the stage, my opinion counts for nothing in framing the course of events in this conflict. I am not a member or representative of any government involved. Rather, I am trying to make available on Wikipedia the full range of paths, peace processes, proposals, etc., that have been suggested by those that do influence the course of events, so that people reading Wikipedia can form their own opinions with as little outside or wikipedia editorial comment as possible.

You are correct that given current demographics it appears that the Arabs either would have a majority in that "one state" or soon form a majority. I say appears, because the future has a way of surprising people and confounding the experts. Who would have forseen the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union or the outcome of either the 1948 or 1967 war. Post-facto many folks write about the "inevitability" of events.

Statements of apartheid, seem to prejudge a response to a situation that has not occurred. That's a judgement twice removed (the future response to a future event). I shudder to even think of making such statements.

Regarding which political party can acheive a solution, some suggest that only Labor could do so. Nixon went to China, Begin went to Camp David, Sharon removed communities from the Sinai, Rabin was know as "Mr Security". (I use communities in light of the fact that I live a "community/city/settlement" in a country that has displaced its native population, waged numerous wars that have had the effect of expanding the territorial bounds of the country, and studiously choses not to dwell on the fact. Not that there is much to do about it at this point in time.) It may well be more likely that Likud can take such a step than Labor due to its record and reluctance.

Regarding a "pogrom" (perhaps massacre or ethnic cleansing would be more appropriate) or forced exodus, we are in the realm of disputed history that will be used to cite a precedent of behavior. Before discussing that, the history dispute would need to be resolved. I doubt that will happen in those years that are left before me.

A peaceful, prosperous Palestinian Arab state is something that many would very much desire to see arise. This requires the cooperation of the populace. Groups within a society dedicated to a goal and willing to use force in the attempt to acheive that goal has a very good chance of preventing a state from obtaining those characteristics. This is once reason that some argue that the Palestinians must confront elements within their own society before a state should be established. OneVoice 15:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a complex problem. I hope for the best but with a great deal of caution in my expectations. Jamesday 11:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To OneVoice:

A "peaceful, prosperous Palestinian Arab state" sounds a lot like the Kingdom of Jordan: it's peaceful, it's prosperous, it's in Palestine and it's chock full of Arabs. What more do you want? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed: I suppose they want one on the other side of the river? -Penta 23:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about one that they don't have to emigrate to be part of? One that Palestinians (as opposed to Bedouin, as in Jordan) rule would no doubt also be nice. - 15:58, 22 March 2004

In any event, the original line of discussion was regarding the League of Nations mandate. Whatever you may have been told, Britain failed in Palestine. While we have something that may resemble the words of the League document today, when the British abandoned the mandate in 1948 they had nothing to show for their time there. No indigenous parliament or public service, no economic institutions, not even a working negotiation between Jews and Arabs. In my opinion if the British had done a better job the situation would be entirely different. But that's hindsight for you - we should not judge.--Cuomo111 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What they want

Unfortunately, discussions among Wikipedians about how to describe the various facts, views and aspirations of the major groups -- is scattered all over this website (and is often interrupted by mean-spirited bickering).

When I first got involved in Wikipedia, I managed to "bring peace to the Middle East" (as I light-heartedly put it), but some people including me felt it was at the expense of a multiplicity of views. So I laid off for a year.

I don't have the time now that I did then, but I hope I have a clearer understanding of how to write unbiased articles.

Anyway, one very interesting 'elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about' is the idea that:

• Palestine includes Jordan (or at least, it used to)
• "a Palestinian state" for Arabs, Muslims and non-Jews generally might therefore already exist: it's called "Jordan"
• arguments that (a) "Palestinians" ought to have a homeland, but (b) they don't have one, so (c) the world ought to help them got one; might all be based on the tacit assumption that Jordan is not a Palestinian state.

Now I might be a partisan about this (check me if I'm veering into pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli, or pro-Zionist bias!!) -- but all the history I've ever looked at says that:

1. Palestine got into British hands (somehow or other)
2. The majority of this land, pretty much everything east of the Jordan River, turned into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or "trans-Jordan" and is today's Jordan -- you know, the country that signed a treaty with Israel a couple of years ago.
3. This left the "swathe of territory in the Middle East, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, which the League of Nations entrusted to the United Kingdom to administer" in two parts: (1) Jordan, on the east of the river; plus (2) all the rest, on the west of the river
4. At this point, some people started using the word "Palestine" to refer to the western portion of the entire region formerly called "Palestine"
5. Many refugees found themselves statelesss, and various sides blamed various parties for this (it was the fault of the Israelis for "kicking them out of their homes"; it was the fault of Arabs for "promising them great things if they would leave their homes", etc.)

So the disposition of the British Mandate of Palestine has hinged ever after, on views of:

• who are "the Palestinians"?
• does this group (however defined) merit a sovereign homeland?
• should Jewish people also have a homeland?
• how much of the original Mandate lands will be sufficient to provide each of these groups with a homeland?

Now it seems to me (and thus I'm veering into partisanship for a moment, if I haven't been there the whole time already!) -- that Jordan was for at least some period of time intended to be the place where Mandate Arabs were to settle, and that if Jordan and the surrounding Islamic states had agreed to welcome refugees as citizens then everything would be fine. (Yep, that's a POV all right! ;-)

Am I the only one who's every thought of this? If so, it's "original research" and probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Not until I write a book about it and get it published. (Reminder to self: try Regnery).

All right, I'm out of time. But I hope I have provided food for thought. --Uncle Ed 13:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one to think of that. It's a fairly popular opinion among Israelis. I first heard it more than 20 years ago. Concerning the word Palestine, I think it has generally referred mainly to the west side of the Jordan, but I'm not sure about that. (Certainly the Philistines were on the west.) EricK 19:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The Brits succeeded in fulfilling the Mandate in spite of themselves!"

It should be pointed out that:

1. Britain had conquered this part of the Middle East in 1917, before the League of Nations came into being. We had administered it for many years before the League of Nations gave us a "Mandate" to do what we were already doing. There was no need for us to agree with the mandate, we could have just added Palestine to our colonial possessions as was the custom of the time.

2. Britain originated the Balfour Declaration. We had the right to amend it to suit the changing circumstances of the time. We had responsibility for the existing population of Palestine, mainly Arab, that is why Lord Balfour was careful with the wording "being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The agreement was for a "National Home" not a "Jewish State".

3. The trouble came with the massive immigration of European Jews and their policy of evicting the existing Arab farmers and putting Jews in their place. They had no regard for the rights of the people they were evicting and had a "Jews only" employment policy. This policy was clearly against the spirit and letter of the Balfour Declaration and would be illegal under most modern legislation.

4. The Arabs rebelled and the British put the rising down. They tried to stem the Jewish immigration which was the root cause of the trouble and were rewarded by Jewish terrorism. They now had both sides against them and this continued throughout WW2 where the Jews saw nothing wrong with conducting a terrorist campaign against the British who were fighting the Nazis, the very people who were trying to exterminate the Jews in Europe. You would have thought they would have supported us in this fight instead of stabbing us in the back. The assassination in Cairo on 6 November 1944 of Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State, by Jewish terrorists was just one example of their duplicity. Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi terrorist gang had actually approached Hitler to advocate an alliance with Nazi Germany against Britain.

5. In retrospect, the Balfour Declaration was a mistake. We had no right to take away another peoples land and give it to foreigners. We supported Zionism out of sympathy for the Jews and this humane policy backfired on us and resulted in this region of the Middle East being the prime cause of terrorism in the modern world. If Balfour had any idea of the trouble his "Declaration" would cause he wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.

JP 29 Dec 2004

The San Remo conference did not fix the borders of Palestine. Here it is if you want to read it. - Mustafaa 22:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map of the British Mandate with the Jewish population info.

The new map of the British Mandate in the introduction is more appropriate for that section since it doesn't carry any information beyond the geography of the region. However I disagree that the British Mandate map with the Jewish settlements is in any way POV: it is a factual representation of the land owned by the Jews at the time. I've moved it to a more appropropriate section of the page that talks about the tensions between Arabs and Jews over the ownership of the land and the British resolutions targeted to ease the tensions. St33lbird 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From looking at the map, we see that Jews are settled in several scattered areas, mainly along the coast and the Jezereel Valley. What about Arab settlement? Were there any Arabs in these areas? Was all the rest settled by Arabs? Were the Jews the dominant group in those areas labeled "Jewish settlement"? Were there Arabs in Palestine at all? The map does not tell us. It seems that the purpose of the map is to illustrate that the Jewish settlement in Palestine was concentrated in a small area. While this may be perfectly true (and so was Arab settlement, as in any country that is mostly desert), this is well demonstrated by the numbers given in this article and in 1947 UN Partition Plan. The map seems unnecessarily stressing this point in a misleading way. And clearly, describing this map as "Population distribution in 1947" is misleading.--Doron 22:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. As well, the other map of the Mandate appears to directly contradict the article itself, since it shows only the cis-Jordanian portion of the mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, you know very well that after 1922 "Palestine" meant the cis-Jordanian portion for all purposes. The wording of the UN partition plan didn't even bother to make the distinguishment, even though it is an important international legal document. The borders of what one could call "Palestine" have changed drastically back and forth since antiquity, and I don't see why insisting on a particular entity that arguably existed for only a brief period. You'll notice that almost the whole article deals with the territory shown in the map, while Transjordan is hardly mentioned at all, so the map I added reflects the contents of the article as well as the political reality of the article's subject. --Doron 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article explicitly states that the Mandate included (what is now) Jordan. And speaking of "important international legal document" that "didn't even bother to make the distinguishment", the Mandate document itself didn't have a special name for the trans-Jordanian portion of the mandate, but rather simply said that the British could withhold the provisions of the Mandate in that area (to which it does not give a specific name). Clearly at the time of the Mandate, Palestine included both, but by dint of 25 years of separate administration, by the time of the Partition Plan, they were considered different territories. Since this article is about the Mandate, not the Partition Plan, it should reflect the Mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The territories were treated separately since 1922, not just in 1947. You'll notice, for instance, that all report of the mandatory to the League of Nations since 1924 refer to "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" (see [1] under UNISPAL). The article itself states that Britain administered the western part as "Palestine". So it would be perfectly correct in this context to include that map as a map of "Palestine" (being a part of "Palestine and Trans-Jordan"). I agree that it should be made clear that the map reflects only part of the original mandate territory, and perhaps a map of the whole territory of "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" may also be useful. And more importantly - the article says nothing about Transjordan (except for how it was established) - if the article is also about Transjordan, there should be information about it.--Doron 22:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can clarify that it's only part, and find a map of the whole mandate, then I would have no objection. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wrong borders?

"a part of the Golan Heights" is wrong. All of the Heights belonged to (French) Syria.

      Arno

No. The original borders included part of the Golan Heights. In 1923 the borders were adjusted. Read the article.--Doron 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because it says so on Wikipedia doesn't make it so..:) To my knowledge the Golan was never part of the British mandate. The area which was "shifted" in 1923 is Northern Galilee ("Etzba HaGalil"). Remember Tel-Hai? That's one of the reasons for this "shift"- Jewish presence was brought by the Brits as reason for the inclusion of this area in the mandate. I promise to bring references ASAP... Sangil 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...actually it seems you are right regarding the Golan (at least according one map I found)- so I take it back. I still stand behind what I said regarding Northern Galilee though. Sangil 07:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See Golan Heights. --Zero 09:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically the Golan Heights were never part of the British Mandate. The demarcation of the border between the French and British zones was signed Feb 3, 1922[2] and ratified on July 23, 1923[3], (the day before Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne ceding sovereignty) while Britain and France didn't officially become Mandatories until Sept. 29, 1923.[4]Javadane 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

unsourced, wrong and biased material

There was a large amount of political opinion and unsourced information on this page. Population estimates, unsourced and politically biased have been removed. The aim of those numbers was to claim that in spite of census data showing that Palestinians were a large majority that somehow that majority is mostly nomadic or refugee from the Hejaz. None of that is suppported by reputable voices on the subject.

The other thing removed was the vicious assertation that Palestinians didn't object to the Balfour declaration early on and that when they did, it was an anti-semetic reaction controlled by arab leaders. There are an abundance of counter-examples to this. Those picked this time were taken from _Paris 1919_ by Margaret MacMillian but other sources exist in abundance.

A paragraph making assumptions about British motives was also removed because it was nothing more than political opinion.

I'm also going to remove claims that attempt to claim that the 1936 uprising involved Italy. Its NPOV and further an attempt to de-legitimize what is recognized generally as a broad-based uprising that started in the Palestine Mandate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) .

According to WP:V, the material should be verifiable, but I don't think this justifies the wholesale removal of material. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale changes were required because there are major problems with the current page. I'm certainly willing to consider less drastic changes if my concerns already outlined are addressed. My proposed edits can be reviewed even though they have been removed. But I dont know (for example) how to preserve the paragraph that says Palestinians didn't object to the mandate early on and that when objections were raised by Arabs they were based in anti-semitism. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I should go about preserving that paragraph which is IMO wrong and politically inflamitory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) .

Its been about a week and there has been only the one comment. Are there any final objections to insertion of the proposed changes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) .

• Take it easy Mr. Anonymous. These kind of articles have been "evolving" for years and your haste is suspicious. IZAK 09:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• I waited a week before I put out the message. I put the message out to generate some kind of discussion because there wasn't really any (it accomplished its purpose). If you are reviewing the changes, it would help me to know what kind of timeframe is needed. Please lets confine the discussion to facts and sources. - anonymous

Why not propose a change here first, I don't even know what you're suggesting changing. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I created this section and added the initial text to do that. I also assumed that since you personally removed the material and asked for a discussion on it, that you would have been familiar with it. If its the right procedure, I'll put exact word-for-word changes into the discussion rather than the generalizations of the problem sections I provided. I'm also willing to accept alternative changes that fix the problems I originally outlined. (demographics, editorializing about British motives, asserting that there were no objections by palestinians early in the mandate plus accusation that their objections such as they were are related to european anti-semitism, Italy's role in the 1936 uprising).- anonymous

Listing the specific changes you'd like to make here would be really helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the citation disclaimer at the beginning of this article because there are many many places that need citations W00tfest99 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Restructure Opening

It does not seem appropriate to open the body of the article with conspiracy theories about Zionism. I suggest moving the lengthy quotations concerning British political machinations to a subordinate section, entitled something like "Factors Leading to the Mandate", which might also incorporate the discussion of contradictory promises offered to Arab and Jewish groups. — JEREMY 06:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the material in question:

British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with the Great Game and the planning for the Suez Canal. As early as 1840, Viscount Palmerston (later to become Prime Minister) wrote to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire:

"There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth that they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions, and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Egypt or its neighbours. I wish to instruct your Excellency strongly to recommend to the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine."

Later, in 1907, a commission convened by Prime Minister Campbell-Bannerman issued a report declaring:

"There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects."

It does appear to be conspiracy material; I can't find any reasonable sources for these claims, and the sites that suggest they are factual and/or relevant are, to put it politely, less than scholarly. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, it was inserted August 20-22 by a revert puppet: 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... not a good idea to let a propagandist control the content of Wikipedia, I'd say. I find a reference to the Palmerston quote here; I'd seen a complete quote at another pro-Israeli site before. Don't think there's any doubt, among honest people knowledgeable of the situation, of its authenticity. Couldn't find, just now, the Campbell-Bannerman quote online. Jay, why don't you provide the links to the "less than scholarly" source where you found it? Marsden 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the full Palmerston text from a Canadian Christian Zionist site: [5] Marsden 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This transcript of a Haaretz article (will see about verifying that) mentions the Campbell-Bannerman report, albeit as part of "the Palestinian narrative." Marsden 18:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Haaretz article seems legit. Marsden 18:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I restored the Palmerston quote with a link. Could not find a source online that I liked for the Campbell-Bannerman quote, and the sources I did find disagreed over whether it was from 1902 or from the 1907 conference. Might have to look to hardcopy somewhere. Marsden 19:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't find a source online that "you liked" for the Campbell-Bannerman quote was because they are all, as I said above, less than scholarly. For example, [6] [7] [8], and dozens of blogs, message board postings, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's a real quote, then the question is, is it relevant, or is it cherrypicking? Was a statement sent to the British ambassador in Constantinople in 1840 really relevant to the British Mandate in 1917? It seems to be part of a "narrative" that is not really espoused by any mainstream historians, are there any that suggest this? Or is it an "extreme minority view"? (p.s. dig regarding "propagandists" out of line and incorrect) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is relevant. See [9]. "Propagandist" no more out of line, and much more correct, than "revert puppet." Marsden 00:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The anonymous IP was you. Well, outside of this article fully half of the times you used this IP edit was for reverts, so "revert puppet" was not unwarranted for an anonymous IP that spent half its time reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... how much of your time is spent reverting, Jay? Marsden 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

POV intro to quote

The introduction to the quotation inserted by anon IP/Marsden currently states "British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with the Great Game and the planning for the Suez Canal." This is highly POV, implying that the British interest in Zionism had something in common with "the Great Game" and its plans for the Suez Canal, and creating a linkage between them. Is there any evidence that British interest in Zionism had anything to do with these things, as opposed to various other causes (e.g. Christian belief)? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Map of Land Ownership

The External link http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story571.html Map of Land Ownership 1947] states that As of 1947, the Palestinians owned 93% of the total lands. Everyone familiar with the subject of land tenure in the region knows this is false. The referenced source is a mere anti-Israel propaganda outlet. Removing link from article. Doright 23:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"State-owned"

Before we get into revert wars, let's be clear what is meant by "state-owned." From what I seem to recall, the British took over vast land areas in the region that belonged to the Ottoman Empire. I am not sure if they were "crown" (e.g., owned by the Osmanli sultan, or were public lands belonging to the government. In any event, they were surrendered to the mandate following WWI and therefore went into limbo after the British abandoned the mandate. UNSCOP probably assumed that public lands would fall to the regime that governed various sections of the partition; in any event, the UNSCOP recommendations never approached anything legal. --Leifern 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be better just to say how much land was unowned or "commons." It is clearly missleadig to say that "much of the land was Jewish-owned or state owned," particularly as a riposte to "most Palestinians opposed division." Marsden 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When the state owns land, it owns land - it's not ownerless. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A mandatory government is not a state, and "owns" essentially nothing in its mandate. You're employing missleading weasel-speak. Marsden 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The mandate owns the land in lieu of the state, and hands it over to the state when one is formed; I rather think it would be misleading to imply that 70% of the land was owned by Arabs. Also, please abide by Wikipedia's civility policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And for your part, please make a better effort at abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and especially to refrain from restoring comments that you know are biased and missleading. Also, when you incorporated statistics from a particular source, please try to be sure to incorporate all the relevant statistics, and not just the ones that support your POV. Thanks. Marsden 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, as I'm sure you know, the mandatory government doesn't own anything any more than a bank owns the money you have on deposit with it. Marsden 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence, "The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population, although much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews, had a Jewish majority, or was under state control," is phrased in a way to suggest that "the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs" and "most of the Arab population" were objecting to a partition that was strongly indicated by demographics and land ownership, which is biased and missleading. In fact, the partition was designed in a way that was profoundly prejudicially favorable to the proposed Jewish state, giving as much territory as it could to that state while maintaining a strong Jewish majority (55%). There is no legitimate need to refer to land under "state" control (really what this means is that no individual owned it; much of it was in fact tribally shared commons) in indicating facts that lean toward supporting Jewish control of land: obviously, land under state control doesn't on its own suggest any preferential treatment. The phrasing of the sentence has the effect of making the phrase "much of the land" less false by absurdly including "state" controlled land with Jewish-owned land, but it makes no sense to include; it is something like me claiming that I and the county government together control most of the land in my neighborhood -- true, but phrased in a way that has no purpose but to suggest something that has no basis in fact: that I control a lot of the land in my neighborhood. Marsden 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Opponents of the partition typically make the exact same absurd claim in reverse; that Jews owned 6%, and therefore the Arabs owned 94%. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. I think I will track down a statement about common ownership, though, which I'm sure I've seen. In any case, the disposition of land either unowned, government controlled, or state owned should not be presented in a way that suggests that it naturally inures to the benefit of one side or the other. It is wrong to suggest, as the 94% figure does, that anything that was not Jewish-owned was necessarily Palestinian-owned; but it is also wrong to suggest, as the sentence in question does, that because "much" (did it say "most" before?) of the land was either Jewish or state-owned, Palestinians were being unreasonable in rejecting the partition: in fact, Palestinians did apparently own more than twice as much land as Jews even in the land that became Israel. Marsden 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have to parse the arguments here, because there are two. One is about private land ownership, i.e., what land was under title by private individuals (farmers, landowners, families) or organizations (JNF, religious organizations, etc.) The other is what land was under sovereign ownership. We can not mix these two. I think we can dispense with the private land ownership issue fairly easily, except for whether it's 6, 7, or 8%, etc. On the sovereign ownership, or public lands, those who are against Israel will say that because they reject the establishment of the State of Israel, they will also reject Israeli claims to those lands that were public; conversely, those who support the establishment of the State of Israel will (necesarily) accept that the ownership of such public lands goes to the new governmental entity, i.e., Israel. --Leifern 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your bifurcation, but I think you oversimplify the matter of "sovereign owned" land. First of all, who or what was the sovereign? Before the mandate, you might say the Ottoman government, but after? The British Mandatory Government was very specifically not sovereign; they were really more like regents, holding the property for a particular purpose. Normal consideration would be that the resident population has natural sovereignty, but the Mandate purpose of creating a "Jewish home" suggests something else. And then, even having decided what we mean by "sovereign," there are generally even limits on sovereign powers that are recognized; no "crimes against humanity," e.g. Marsden 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the Ottoman system of land ownership taken into account in the discussion about "state ownership"? I don't know a whole lot about this, but as far as I recall, the Ottomans had five different categories of ownership, which don't exactly overlap the private/public division. Much of the land belonged to the Sultan, but villages had rights with regards to them. The Mandate government was in the process of registering lands according to a modern system, but by 1948 had completed only a third of the survey. Thus, some of the 70% would include land that was "owned" by the state, but would naturally be designated as something else. Am I making any sense to anyone?--Doron 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, what you write makes sense. I'm going to try to track down a statement on that. Marsden 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ye olde "70% was State Land" claim

I'm commenting out this section:

According to British statistics, had the U.N. partition plan been implmented, of the land that would have become Israel (approximately 78% of western Mandate Palestine, by area, and 18% if including the Mandate areas east of the Jordan River), Jews would have owned almost 9%, Palestinians who became citizens of Israel (and retained ownership of their land) would owned another 3%, about 18% would have been owned by Arabs who would later leave the area. The rest (about 70%), previously owned by the mandatory government would become public land of the Jewish State.[10]

This set of statistics has a long history. The source was a pamphlet published by the Israel Academic Committee on the Middle East, which attributed these numbers to "Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257". How a 1946 British report would know which Arabs would "leave the area" in 1948 was not explained. Actually the pamphlet (reprinted later under the name of Moshe Aumann) has 8.6%, 3.3% and 16.5% where our version says 9%, 3% and 18%. These same numbers presented in various ways but always as "British statistics" has been in Myths and Facts since the 1970s. The problem is that the Survey of Palestine, on page 257 or any other page, does not have these figures. The only one of these numbers which could conceivably be derived from the Survey is the 70%, but only if one counts all land whose ownership had not been determined (more than half of all of Palestine) as state land. The Survey is also clear on the issue (alluded to above) of the way that the Ottoman land system was not parallel to the European one. As well as examples of ownership similar to European private ownership, there was land owned by villages, private ownership of an amount of land but not a specific plot of land, several types of permanent lease, and private land that reverted to the government if it wasn't cultivated regularly. The Survey is also clear that the vast majority of state land, both that legally determined and that which would probably be so determined, was desert or difficult hill country. In other words, as well as being based on unknown sources, these numbers are highly misleading. --Zero 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is very analogous to how it is in Europe. Because unarable and waste land was not considered to have any value, it was either left unclaimed or became part of ill-defined communal property. This was the case for the vast majority of the area of Norway, for example, where "almenning" applied to areas that had natural resources, and nobody owned other land. I actually find the statistic entirely plausible. I don't know how ownership was determined in Arab countries, but in European countries, land typically reverted to the government when ownership needed to be determined. Your deletion has basis in your interpretation and clearly reflects your anti-Israeli point of view. I'm reverting. --Leifern 00:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You find it plausible? Good for you! Your next assignment is to go out and find a citation for it. --Zero 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is a citation; you just consider it to be incorrect. I'm concerned that you might be using original research to counter a citation; is that the case? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation given in the linked article (see footnote 6) says that the information comes from page 257 of the Survey of Palestine. However, it is not there at all so we are left with no source. I don't believe it is original research to check citations and report that they do not contain information which is claimed to be there. As far as I know, the only sources for this "70%" figure claim that it originates in the Survey. It doesn't. --Zero 02:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is another source. Spot the difference.

"Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 dunums...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the mandatory regime. The JNF and private Jewish owners possess under two million dumums. Almost all the rest [i.e. about 88% of the 20,255,000 dunums within the armistice lines] belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The JNF, however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel."
- Jewish National Fund, Jewish villages in Israel, Jerusalem 1949; quoted in Lehn and Davis, The Jewish National Fund, Keegan Paul International, 1988, page 132 (ellipsis and parenthetical remark in Lehn and Davis). --Zero 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you now claming that the JNF's analysis of "law" is accurate in this case? It's obviously fundamentally incorrect, since it seems to assume that all land not explicitly owned by Jews was explicity owned by Arabs. This, as you know, is not the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything particular about it, just noting that there are alternative claims. All of them suffer from a problem of definitions and a lack of hard data. The Brits established a court in the late 1920s or early 1930s whose task it was to determine the ownership of every part of Palestine, but by 1948 it had only completed the task for less than half of the country. It is conjectural what would have been decided in many of the remaining cases. Ottoman Law provided a lot of different types of ownership/possession of land and different ways of forcing them into the private-or-public paradigm give different results. Israel classified as much land as possible as "state land". --Zero 13:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Things are not quite as uncertain as it might seem, however. The above mentioned Survey of Palestine and some other sources do have some estimates that can be quoted. I'll do so when I am back on the right continent. --13:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is another:

"The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land." UNSCOP report to the GA, para 164 (1947)

While possession might be nine-tenths of the law, it's not the same thing as ownerhip. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually... since the Ottomans did not in general register land ownership in the way we do now, proof of possession over an extended period together with the lack of a contrary claim was taken by the British land court as establishing ownership. In theory, the same is true in the West Bank still (practice is another matter). --Zero 13:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And another source. This one is a map prepared for the UN in 1950 based on the Village Statistics compiled by the British administration in 1945: [11]. Anyone know the copyright status of things like this? --Zero 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To Jayjg, regarding the revert of my correction. I stand at the position that of the 55% of the territory (of Palestine) allotted to the Jewish state (55% of the total), approx. 9% of it was owned by Jews. You insist that 9% of what became Israel (78% of Palestine) was owned by Jews. This is incorrect. Going by my figure, Jews owned atleast 9% x 55% = 5% of Palestine. Add that to 1-2% of property in Jerusalem and Jews owned 6-7% of Palestine. Going by you figure Jews owned 9% x 78% = >7% of PAlestine. Add 1-2% of Jerusalem, and you have an unreasonably high figure. The reason this is unreasonably high is because in the same paragraph, you have the contradicting statement " the Jews have, so far, managed to acquire less than seven percent of the land area of Palestine." User:Bless_sins 2 February 2006

If you're quoting a source, then quote it; please don't use your own calculations to try to figure out what the "correct" numbers should be, especially since it actually makes your meaning less clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Some more POV stuff

Anyone notice "The Jewish organization Etzel replied with its own terrorist campaign, with marketplace bombings and other violent acts that also killed hundreds. Eventually, the uprising was put down by the British using draconian measures."?

1. There is no reference to support the claim that Etzel acts killed "hundreds".
2. Why were British measures "draconian"? In the context of that time (Armed uprising and widespread violence) weren't they appropriate? IMHO they were in no way draconian, in comparison to any other response to rebellion in history.

- Sangil 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. See Irgun. We shouldn't have to repeat sources if they are given in the obvious Wikipedia article.
2. See Great Uprising. The word "draconian" is a problem since it is obviously a judgement. These measures included once demolishing an entire village, and once detaining the male population of a village in the sun until they started dying. Quite a few Arabs (about 100) were hanged too. You are right that many rebellions (maybe most) in history were put down even more brutally, but we have to say something here. Perhaps a word like "severe" would be better?

--Zero 03:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Regarding Irgun - it 'assumes' that all slain arabs were civilians, and then in itself links to series of attacks, which IMO in no way can be considered a subjective account. There is no reference to names, and especially to context (were the arabs militants? civilians? were they conducting attacks on jews when they were killed?)- just "X arabs killed in location Y". I think the wording should be changed to "The Jewish organization Etzel replied with its own militant campaign. This comprised of armed defence of the jewish population and retaliations to arab attacks, as well as its own attacks against arab civilians. The total number of arab deaths as a result of these actions is about 250."
2. Yes, I think "draconian" should indeed be replaced with "severe".
   -Sangil 12:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If Irgun and the pages it links to don't make it clear enough that most of the casualties were civilians then they should be changed. In this time period Irgun hardly ever took on armed opponents. The operations in the list with the greatest casualties were bombs set off in public places like markets and train stations, together with shooting attacks on buses and the like. I suggest you choose a few and look up their contemporary reports in the Palestine Post at [12]. --Zero 13:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I did. Despite my best efforts, I could not find a single reference to these attacks. I tried searching using the keyword 'irgun' in the period 1935-1940, as well as looking up specific dates that are mentioned (e.g. June 19 1939). If you have an alternative method for searching the Palesine-Post archive, or any other references to these attacks - please enlighten me. Otherwise, I suggest any reference to attacks for which the Irgun did not claim responsibilty be removed. As mentioned before, the Irgun never shyed from claiming responsibilties for its actions. Therefore any such attacks not mentioned by Irgun are highly unlikely to have been commited by them.

-Sangil 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to look up the PP on the days following the specified dates. If they don't say who was responsible, it means that nobody claimed responsibility; you have the chain of logic backwards. Etzel responsibility for these attacks is extremely well known in Israel. You can ask practically anyone who has been around since the beginning of the state. Amongst historians, Irgun responsibility is taken as thoroughly proved and is not even a topic of debate. It has been admitted countless times in memoirs of Irgun members, not to mention confirmation based on original documents published in books and scholarly articles. Your last two sentences are based on an incorrect understanding - you are assuming the Etzel of Raziel had the same characteristics as the Etzel of Begin. It wasn't so. I'll put a more explicit reply with citations at Talk:List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s during the next hour. --Zero^talk 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Zero wrote:"...is extremely well known in Israel. You can ask practically anyone who has been around since the beginning of the state."
• this is not a good source according to WP:RS - please follow policy. Thanks. Zeq 07:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

I'm proposing that this article be merged with Palestine Mandate. Personally, I think that this article is of much higher quality than Palestine Mandate, and I think that we should just dump the other one unless it has new info. ApathyInternational

I agree

-Sangil 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. But please do a raw copy of the text of Palestine Mandate into this article or its talk page, first. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

How much was supposed to be Jewish?

Here's something about boundaries, Arabs, and Jews:

In 1922, the British declared that the boundary of Palestine would be limited to the area west of the river. The area east of the river, called Transjordan (now Jordan), was made a separate British mandate and eventually given independence (See map at right) . A part of the Zionist movement felt betrayed at losing a large area of what they termed "historic Palestine" to Transjordan, and split off to form the "Revisionist" movement [13]

There was never a seperate mandate for Transjordan. It was the same mandate, with common administration, currency, etc. The difference was that Transjordan was under the control of Abdullah, and was closed to Jewish settlement (and even entry).

-Sangil 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused about (1) who said (2) which portions of historic Palestine (3) ought to go to Jews or Arabs (4) in which year. This is 4 distinct points of confusion, and I have been reading and contributing to articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for over 4 years now.

Are we all working at cross purposes, or what? Please, let's some of us who want clear, accurate and neutral articles get together and straighten this mess out. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the legal documents ever used the term "historic" Palestine. The Ottomans never had a legal subdivision called Palestine and historic maps that used the term varied widely in depicted borders.

1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement doesn't use the term "Palestine" but outlines an "International Condominium" for the area. What is now Jordan was not included in the Condominium, nor was the Negev (with a line drawn from roughly the middle of the Dead Sea to about Rafah.[14]

1917 Balfour Declaration used the terms "in Palestine" and "a national home for the Jewish people."

1919 Treaty of Versailles Article 22 provided for mandates. (The current version of this article erroneously claims it created the Mandate then).

1920 April San Remo conference "The Principal Allied Powers" agreed Britain should be the Mandatory for Palestine. Articles 4-7 deal with the immigration of Jews. Article 4 uses the expression "the Jewish national home." Note the change from "a" of Balfour to "the." Article 25, however, states "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions..."

1920 August Treaty of Sèvres was the peace treaty with the Ottomans. It was never ratified as the Turks overthrew the government. It incorporated much of the language of the San Remo Conference agreement. It referenced the Balfour Declaration and reverted to the expression "a national home for the Jewish people." As to borders it stated "Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."[15]

1921 Cairo Convention Abdullah is offered Tranjordan by Churchill (then Colonial Sec.).

1922 July The League of Nations incorporated the San Remo agreement as the "Palestine Mandate." There was no change of wording in Articles 4-7 and 25.[16]

1923 May Transjordan established.

1923 July Treaty of Lausanne Peace Treaty with the Turkish government. Formally cedes sovereignty of "the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty." No explicit reference to Palestine in the treaty.[17]

September 29, 1923 Britain formally assumed control of the Palestine Mandate when France and Italy consented at a meeting of the League of Nations to the July 1922 document. Technically, the British Mandate of Palestine didn't begin until this point. Britain had been acting as a mandatory since 1920, but until the formal cessation of hostilities in 1923, it was really a traditional military occupation.

As for "which portions of historic Palestine" "ought to go to Jews or Arabs"

The 1937 Peel Commission Report would be the first proposal to have a separate division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs.Javadane 08:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hunting Season

I've modified a passage in the article which contained some inaccuracies, namely:

• Haganah was not underground- it was "semi-legal" and often supported by the British.
• Lehi members were not hounded by the Haganah. Begin says this was because Lehi had started negotiations to merge with Haganah (which were probably only a delaying tactic). I personally have heard at least one other version- that Lehi threatened to assassinate Ben Gurion if any Lehi member was hurt (I am not sure this is true). In any case, only Irgun members were targeted.
• Haganah did not only help the British "ferret". They actively kidnapped, tortured, and killed, as well as turned over to the British, many Irgun members.

-Sangil 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chaim Weizmann Comment

I've revised the intro for the Chaim Weizmann quote, which purported to speak as a representation of the entire Palestinian people. Whether it should be there at all, I'm not sure: there is currently no citation, and the placing of the quote suggests a bias. It is a very strong Zionist statement, made by only one, albeit important, man, and it should not be implied that this is the intention of the Israeli people or their governmaent at any time. Chrisbang 17:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Weizmann did make this comment and it became so notorious that the British government felt obliged to mention it in the Churchill White Paper, 1922. --Ian Pitchford 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I've added the reference. My main problem was with the surrounding phrasing, stating that Palestinians believe this to be a better representation of Israeli intent, which is far too sweeping a statement, I think. Chrisbang 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Ian Pitchford 12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Land ownership

I once created an article Land ownership of Palestine, it was deleted. The major reason given was that it was a "fork". However, I would like to add the content to this article. The content can be accessed at User:Bless_sins/Palestine.Bless sins 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

SO no one has an objection to the creation of such an article?Bless sins 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

None at all, but it will require a lot of additional work. --Ian Pitchford 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this discussion, but being unfamiliar with its history, I referred it to an admin. I hope you don't mind, but I thought that this may not be the best forum for making this proposal, if only because of its low (?) traffic. It seems as if such a list could potentially be a useful tool though. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So when is this admin going to discuss the issue and help us put this info in the article? Or atleast help decide whtehter this information belongs here or in another article or needs to be improved before bieng added.Bless sins 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need permission to add relevant, sourced material to an article. Just go ahead. I have some additional statistics I can contribute. --Ian Pitchford 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think that this information truly does belong I this article. Ok, I'll take that as a green signal.Bless sins 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really sure why they didn't show up. I was just concerned about repetition of whatever caused it to be deleted as a fork previously. However, as Ian pointed out, it is relevant and sourced. On that note, would it be possible to create a "total" field on the district chart? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The district chart has percentages, therefore you can't exactly add them up. Also the total is subject to controversy, so it best be explained in a paragraph on its own where all POVs are represented.Bless sins 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have area totals for each district [as well as the whole] we could calculate a total percentage. Tewfik^Talk 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mandate for Palestine

Why is this article titled "British Mandate of Palestine" instead of the proper legal name "Mandate for Palestine?"[[18]] Doright 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to change name of article

Unless someone can explain why this article is not properly named as above, I propose changing it. If you object, please say so now, and explain why. Thank you,Doright 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done.-----Doright 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestine Mandate

Is there really a need for a separate Palestine Mandate article? --Coroebus 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"absentee landlords" in Palestine lands, who were they?

... if "The Arabic speakers before World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land". To put it more clear, who did the immigrant Jews buy the land from? --Rebevedi 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible sentence that needs rewriting. Anyway, to answer your question, during the last half of the 19th century there was a trend for farmers to register their properties in the names of local 'notables'. This sounds strange, but it saved on taxes, help to avoid the draft, etc.. Also, in hard times farmers sometimes sold their land and leased it back, in order to financially survive. The result was that by late in the century quite a lot of the land worked by the farmers was legally owned by a comparatively small number of wealthy landowners. Some of them lived in Palestine and some elsewhere (such as Beirut or Cairo). These landowners were the obvious place for the Zionists to look for sellers. Then the farmers were kicked off. Sometimes the sale stipulated that the land owner had to kick the tenants off before the money was paid. --Zero^talk 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Zero. It seems that the conflict started - initially at least - with the ever-eternal problem of rich and poor. Shouldn´t poor Palestinians who lost their land blaim their own rich fellow countrymen who sold the land to the Jews? (It´s a rethorical question, I am just trying to answer myself, where does the hate towards Jews come from in that area.) --Rebevedi 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rebevedi, a good number of the landowners in question weren't local; as Zero0000 says some of them were from Beirut or further afield, such as the Sursock family. Locals did in fact protest strongly against the sale of land. This wasn't just under the British; the Ottoman authorities too were unwilling to prevent sale of land as long as it was legally in order; this was actually a major issue for some Arab deputies in the Ottoman parliament, most famously Shukri al-Assali. Palmiro | Talk 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The first Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, was a Zionist who wrote the land law of the Mandate, and he made Zionist Norman Bentwich Attorney General. "The first Land Transfer Ordinance was issued in September 1920 ...... For the first time, land use was separated from land ownership. ......... These land laws would also later result in the creation of a dispossessed class of Palestinian tenant farmers who had clear legal rights under Ottoman law, but became liable to eviction by court orders under Samuel's land policy." [19]

You're falling for Zionist propaganda over hatred of Jews. What's astonishing is that the Palestinians didn't organise and lash out at the Zionists forcibly from early on. They've paid an appalling price for this tolerance.

PalestineRemembered 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's funnier - your claim that Samuel was a zionist, your claim that there was something wrong about Jews buying land in their homeland, or your claim that there was an arab tolerance. Surely you are being satirical. Amoruso 07:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't aware that Samuel was a Zionist? This is from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "Before the war he had evinced no public interest in Zionism. Yet in November 1914, immediately after the entry of the Ottoman empire into the war, he took the initiative, without prior contact with the Zionist Organization, in proposing to the cabinet that Britain sponsor the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine after the war. He promoted the idea both informally with fellow ministers and in a formal paper that was circulated to the cabinet (in which, however, the idea of a Jewish state was modified to a ‘Jewish centre’ under British protection). In December 1914 he met the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, inaugurating a political relationship that, while sometimes stormy, yielded rich fruit. Although out of office at the time of the Balfour declaration (whereby Britain undertook to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine) in November 1917, Samuel's advocacy was an important element in the Zionists' success—particularly as against the fierce anti-Zionism of his cousin Edwin Montagu, secretary of state for India." --Ian Pitchford 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If Jewish people were evicted from their homes, purely for their ethnicity, you'd call it (quite rightly) vicious anti-semitism.

But when it happens to Palestinians, you seem to think it is perfectly proper and reasonable.

And it's much worse than that, because the Zionists seized control of the Mandate and re-wrote the Land Laws in order to make mass evictions possible. They made it cheap for the Zionists (who didn't actually have much money, many needing subsidy even to stay in Palestine). Ten Ordinances on land related issues were passed between 1920-25 alone. The new laws made "land-buying" cheap, since they increasingly classified as the "legal owners" the tax-collectors that the Ottomans had used. Those people didn't have legal deeds to "their lands" any more (to the extent they'd ever had ownership, which they'd not). The tax-collectors were very happy when the Zionists manipulated giving them "deeds to the land" with one hand, and immediately giving them smallish sums of money with the other. In fact, it's difficult to classify these deals as "sales", since the Zionists were really only paying for eviction of the "tenants" by the old tax-collectors remaining bailiffs.

Despite this trickery, the Zionists still only had some 7% of the land by 1948.

PalestineRemembered 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, he was very zionist in pardoning who was already a mass murder in the massacre of jews in 1920 and who would become nazi war criminal al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. Amoruso 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, what do you think about the idea that if Samuel, a pro-Zionist jewish High Commissioner, supported al-Husseini... it proves that al-Husseini was not maybe the monster described in israeli historiography ? Alithien 14:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the Zionists have a small point in this case. An ineffective playboy was made mufti (look it up, "advisor to the Sharia Court", almost no power or money and the British wouldn't have listened to anything he decided anyway).

Later this guy indeed went to Hitler to try and save his people. Hitler used him for a little bit of propaganda and tried to have him organise Muslims in the Balkans. (Imagine how much trouble Husseini could have caused the British in Cairo as Rommel stormed across North Africa and was only miraculously stopped at the Egyptian border!)

Husseini was hopeless, "his people" never listened to him (otherwise they'd not be in the terrible position they're in now). Equally hopeless in his dealings with other Arab nations, who ignored the danger in their midst for at least 28 years. These other nations (and their totally inexperienced armies) finally moved against the trained killing machine that was Israel then (and now) only in May 1948, by which time there were already between 200,000 and 380,000 Palestinians living and dying in the fields and ditches.

I would reference all the above and put it into articles, but have a look at what is happening at Naeim Giladi. The Zionists fight tooth and nail to include a worthless statement that racists have picked up on his criticism of Israel, purely introduced in order to slur the subject (in flat violation of Biographies of Living People! So much good work could be done to the project, but good non-Zionist editors are driven off by the obstructionism.

Also notice how what I say about Husseini compares with the admiring things the Zionists say about Lehi. That group of Zionist terrorists really did seek to offer Hitler effective help against the British (but were mysteriously not used either!).

PalestineRemembered 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello PalestineRemembered. To be honnest, I think the Mufti had far more contacts and connections with Nazi Regime in comparison with the only one unsuccessfull attempt made by Lehi. Which is quite normal after what happened in 1936-1939...

From my personnal point of view I think Haj Amin al-Husseini is really one of the key to explain the results of the conflict in Palestine. Maybe he was a play-boy but he was also the leader of the Husseini family which was one of the most powerful in Palestine.

If Ben Gourion had been at his place, and him at the place of Ben Gourion, history would certainly have been different but alternative history is only for the talk pages of wikipedia. ;-).

Regards, Alithien 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

I have removed this paragraph, which needs rewriting before insertion:

The British placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in the remaining land, directly contradicting the provision of the Mandate which said "the Administration of Palestine... shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes." A similar proposal to limit immigration in 1931 had been termed a violation of the mandate by the League of Nations, but by 1939 the League of Nations was defunct. According to the Israeli side, the British had by 1949 allotted over 8500 acres (34 km²) to Arabs, and about 4100 acres (16 km²) to Jews.

This is an argument for a particular point of view, not a dispassionate account as it should be. Of particular note is that the quotation uses "..." to hide the caveat "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced" which formed the basis of the British case. This is unacceptable quotation engineering. Also, it is simply not true that the League of Nations was defunct by 1939. The last sentence needs a source and context, and what is that 1949 doing in there? --Zero^talk 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Transjordan population

I deleted "The 1922 figures may refer to both banks of the Jordan river, at least for the non-Jews." The census report tabulates the population district by district and town by town, so it is quite clear that it does not include Transjordan. In fact the British did not conduct any census in Transjordan until at least 1938 (and I think never, but I don't have a source on that handy). Their annual reports contain a few estimates: For example, the 1924 report says, "the figure is thought to be in the neighbourhood of 200,000, of whom some 10,000 are Circassians and Chechen; there are about 15,000 Christians and the remainder, in the main, are Moslem Arabs." The 1935 report says that there had still been no census but that the population was probably in the range 300,000-320,000 of which all but about 30,000 were Sunni Moslems. This info should go somewhere but maybe not this article. --Zero^talk 14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Palmerston quotation

There is a quotation from Lord Palmerston (1840) early on in the article, but no connection is made between it and the topic of the article. I propose to delete it. Anyone like to argue otherwise? --Zero^talk 09:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the connection is quite explicit - it shows the early British interest in the zionist cause as explained. Amoruso 14:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about Zionism. No connection is shown to the Mandate for Palestine. ---Zero^talk 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's background for the mandate as explained in section. you also seemed to have blanked out another quote. Anyway, if you feel the quote is undue weight, I've removed it. Cheers. Amoruso 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arab land ownership significantly less than 50%?

I removed the reference to this statistic since the linked page referred only to land ownership in the Israeli partition rather than the overall Mandate of Palestine. 128.232.240.178 23:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Article should be moved

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved Patstuart^talk|edits 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) This article should be moved to British Mandate of Palestine because there exist British Mandate of Mesopotamia, French Mandate of Syria and French Mandate of Lebanon. Alternatively all these similar articles should be renamed to the designations which were used at the time of the mandates. --Der Eberswalder 13:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. The existence of other mandates does not make this short title, subject to the pipe trick, a bad thing. As for the others, put them up to be moved if you must, but Wikipedia is inconsistent. Septentrionalis 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There exist redirects, the pipe trick is not the issue here but Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Der Eberswalder 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your convention; I see none that require pedantry and long names, when short ones will do. Septentrionalis

"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.", "Use common names of persons and things", "Be precise when necessary", "Follow local conventions", "In case of name changes, the current widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable." --Der Eberswalder 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these apply; except for "Use common names of names of persons or things", which this move would violate. As the first paragraph shows, there were several full forms of the name of the Mandate, but everybody called it Palestine. Septentrionalis 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support for sake of continuity, first of all, but second, because there were others who ruled over Palestine. This is most certainly a better name. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There was only one mandate. Septentrionalis 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Support The full name more accurately describes the period. It was not just the Palestine Mandate, but the British Mandate of Palestine. Just calling it the Palestine Mandate may mislead people to believe that the article is only referring to modern Israel. The British Mandate of Palestine was the name of the area including Transjordan (modern Jordan). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

This is a reasonable point, which I may be persuaded by; although it would argue for something clearer still. Septentrionalis 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Eric stated it better than I did. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support per Eric1985: the full name -only four words- is clearer and more accurate. - Evv 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support - Palestine is the name of the region, ever since the Romans first changed its name. This article isn't about Palestine, the region. It's about the mandate. Thus, it should be named - "British Mandate of Palestine". No one says "Palestine", when they want to talk about the League of Nations mandate. okedem 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support - More accurate title, and follows naming conventions. Flibirigit 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. The name was "British Mandate of Palestine" until June 6 when it was changed to "Mandate for Palestine" without any discussion. Then on Aug 19 it was changed to "Palestine (mandate)" also without any discussion. I volunteer to move it back to the original title (it needs admin powers), and will do so if there is no good objection in the next 24 hours. --Zero^talk 05:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support- British Mandate of Palestine is accurate, unambiguous, and clearly identifies the article's subject. --Commander Zulu 06:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

How is the subject of this article commonly referred? The current title, Palestine (mandate) implies that the answer is Palestine, but that name is used, and somehow mandate is an appropriate disambiguation remark. If the most common name is not Palestine, then the current title needs to be changed, but to what? The opening sentence of this article says: The Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Mandate of Palestine or British Mandate of Palestine, if accurate, suggests that one of those should be the name. I'm not going to vote until some of this is clarified. --Serge 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about a geographical area but a particular political entity that existed from 1922 to 1948. So "Palestine" as a title even with "(mandate)" after it is not very good. The title should be the name of the political entity, and the most common English name for that is "British Mandate of Palestine". --Zero^talk 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anachronism?

How could the United Kingdom issue the Balfour Declaration in 1917 if it was granted control of Palestine "by the Versailles Peace Conference which established the League of Nations in 1919" Either the grammar is ambiguous or this is anachronistic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.88 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Neither. Britain issued that statement before gaining full control of Palestine. It's just like the allies decided on the fate of Germany in WW2 before conquering it, in several meeting throughout 1942-1945. okedem 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on . . .

How do 800 Jews fit in a "rickety boat"? You Zionists gotta stop this hyperbole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.88 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC).