Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Add India Partition to See Also

I currently don't have >500 edits, so I cannot edit this article due to it being locked with Extended Confirmed Protection. Instead, can someone with >500 edits please add the Partition of India to the "See Also" section? India/Pakistan was partitioned the year before this was voted-on, and this article states that both India and Pakistan voted against the Partition Plan for Palestine. I think the reader may want to read about what happened in India/Pakistan from their recent partition after reading this article. -- 03:21, 16 December 2022 Maltfield

Edit request: Out-of-context quote / possibly misleading attribution (Benny Morris)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not "satisfactory", "severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries"

+

Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomat [[Douglas Busk]] "that he had nothing against Iraqi Jews who were a long established and useful community. He felt bound to tell [him], however, that the Arab League meeting might decide that if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.He would be unable to resist such a proposal."

The original quote can be found here:

Additionally, please fix the same quote in Jewish exodus from the Muslim world#1948 Arab–Israeli War

• Why it should be changed:

  1 - The quotation marks in Morris' book are referring to the original document where Douglas Busk paraphrases Nuri.
  2 - Out-of-context quotation flips Nuri's position. He is clearly against such measures in the full quote but seems to be saying that they should happen in the current version.
  3 - At that point in time, it was not already decided "if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries". But rather that they might decide.

You can verify the quote by searching through google books: google books search

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Bowad91017 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a good proposal and I have confirmed the text. I'll make the edit tomorrow if nobody does it first. Another copy of the telegram this "quotation" comes from, and lots of other cool stuff, is here. Zero^talk 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Zero^talk 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the cool stuff, not seen that before. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the archive.org link. Bowad91017 (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit Request: Recommended partition

The sentence The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert, which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. is not true:

„[…The area assigned to the zionists] also incorporated the vast area of the Negev, which was populated by 100,000 Bedouin who produced from the desert most of the barley and wheat grown in Palestine.
The land under cultivation in the Negev alone was three times that under cultivation by the Jewish settlers in the whole of the rest of Palestine. Despite the fact that there had been but 475 Jewish settlers in the Negev before President Truman made his declaration in favour of the Jewish state, the United Nations duly handed over this huge area to the Zionists, doubtless believing the myth that it was they, not the Arabs, who ‚made the desert bloom‘.“ (Jonathan Dimbleby: The Palestinians. Quartet Books, London et al. 1979. p. 86. Cf. also UN, Sub-Committee 2 on the Palestinian Question: Report of Sub-Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question of the UN General Assembly 1947; Elias Chacour: Blood Brothers. Chosen Books, Grand Rapids 2003, ISBN 978-0-8007-9321-0. p. 46; Walid Khalidi: Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution. In: Journal of Palestine Studies 27/1, 1997. p. 5–21, here 13.) DaWalda (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We can improve the wording even if Dimbleby, not being an expert, is not a great source for this. All that cereal cultivation took part in the northernmost part of Negev (per your source The bulk of them live in the northern and north-western parts of the Beersheba sub-district, where they are responsible for the cultivation of the greater part of the 2 million dunums of cereal land). 2 million dunam is about 2,000 km2, whereas the total area of Negev is 13,000 km2. So both of these statements are true:

• Negev accounted for a substantial part of cereal cultivation
• Most of Negev allotted to the Jewish state was not suitable for agriculture.

We already mention the distribution of the Bedouins in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. The best primary source would probably be the report from Subcommittee 2 (Appendix III.4; VI Part 4).

I think something definitely should be changed: The section is about how economically constituted areas were distributed (Sharon, Jezreel, Jordan: fertile vs. Negev: not suitable for agriculture). But this contrast does not really exist; instead, the northern Negev is allocated to the Jewish state as a fourth important area for agriculture. Perhaps instead: The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley, and the upper Jordan Valley. Additionally, it included the northern Negev, where Bedouins produced just under a third of Palestinian grain. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the southern Negev Desert, which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. --DaWalda (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all of northern Negev was given to the Jewish state, as you can see on the map of the partition. Beersheva and the land to the north-east was to become a part of the Arab state. Compare it to the land use map, I suppose that all that grain was grown in the "medium-quality" "semi-desert lowland."

We already mention that the Jewish state would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain. We could replace Eastern Galilee with Jezreel and Jordan valley to be more precise. The only other thing we should fix is the sentence about Negev: The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert, which was mostly not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. Again, it's notable that the arid part of Negev constituted the majority of the territory allotted to the Jewish state. Alaexis_¿question? 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems unsufficient to me. The 2 million dunams are not referring to the Negev, but to the Beersheba Subdistrict. Originally, this entire area - including the entire 2 million dunams - was supposed to go to the Jewish state before the Americans negotiated that the corner up to Beersheba (see your first map) would be part of the Arab state. This did not mean significant losses of agricultural land for the Jewish state because the areas where Bedouins lived most densely and practiced agriculture most intensively can be seen on this map, if you zoom in a bit: west and northwest of Beersheba (so, you are right, it's the semi-desert lowland). Unsurprisingly, this is also where Israelis later built their settlements after having displaced the Bedouins, as seen on this map. In this region, "regular" agriculture was practiced.

Runoff agriculture area. Source: Cohen 1979, fig. 1

However, the second type of agriculture in the Negev was runoff farming using rainwater runnig through the wadis in the Negev Highlands. Here, the Bedouins continued to use the old terrace systems of the ancient highland inhabitants. It was mostly practiced by nomadic Bedouins, so you can't see it on the Bedouin settlement map. But Bruins in his dissertation reviewed a number of these systems, most of which were continued to be used by the Bedouins. You can see where these predominantly were located on the map to the right (forgive the quality, I quickly put it together for this discussion). Even here, according to the UNSCOP plan everything was supposed to go to the Jewish state. According to the American plan only part of this area was supposed to go to the Jewish state (so, this was indeed a compromise solution in favor of the Palestinians).

One often reads the misconception that the Negev was virtually empty and not suited for agriculture. On the contrary, large areas were well suited, just not for modern western agriculture. Kedar and others have recently written a book on this myth, which they call the "Dead Negev Doctrine". It's currently being heavily promoted again because a new movement is emerging that wants to help the Bedouins assert their right to their land, which Israel has mostly declared first as terra nullius and then as state land. Imho, such myths should not be reproduced on Wikipedia. --DaWalda (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

DaWalda, you have been given some leeway to respond here, but as a non EC editor you are strictly not permitted to participate in consensus forming discussions per WP:ARBECR, so it would be appreciated if you would now let this matter be decided by EC editors, there is no need for any further input on your part. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

First, no one disputes that Negev is suitable for some agriculture, different parts of it to a different degree. The Nabataens, Bedouins and modern kibbutzes have used various techniques to grow stuff there. However it's also a fact that it's less productive than most of the other parts of Israel/Palestine. We shouldn't engage in original research but rather follow secondary sources describing the partition.

Also, if it was perceived unsuitable for agriculture at the time, this can also be relevant, because the decision was taken then. I'll try to review sources and come up with appropriate wording. Until you're WP:XC, feel free to respond at my talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 09:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr Heykal Pasha's quote

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

"Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world... to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews."

+

If Arab blood is shed in Palestine, Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world despite all the sincere efforts of the Governments concerned to prevent such reprisals. to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews simply in order to save a hundred thousand in Europe or to satisfy the Zionist dream?

• Why it should be changed:

- I think quoting "If A, then B" as "...B" is misleading.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The current reference already has the correct quote. it's in take #2 (so page 3 of the pdf) Bowad91017 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The genre of history-by-quotation is much beloved of propagandists and I would prefer that section to disappear. However, since removing it would get too much resistance, we should try to get it accurate. In this case you are correct again that the text is misleading. There are also sourcing problems in that paragraph. Morris cites Heykal with no context from an undated Jewish Agency memorandum; that might be good enough for Morris but it's not good enough for us. The UN source is a preliminary press release that has the meeting number wrong. The 29th meeting was on Nov 22, and neither Heykal nor Fawzi spoke then. Both Heykal's and Fawzi's statements were in the 30th meeting. The official summary is A/AC.14/SR.30. I'm going to replace the paragraph from that source. Zero^talk 04:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done though somewhat differently. Zero^talk 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

To editor Bowad91017: Can you find an original source for "Jamal Husseini promised, 'The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East'"? Morris gives no source and no date or anything pointing at a source. I looked at lots of other places and none had a source or date either. I plan to remove it. Zero^talk 05:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was the quote "Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world" removed? It's right here on page 3. Alaexis_¿question? 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(a) Because I believe the official record is more reliable than a press release. (b) Because it now reports what happened in a less emotive way. (c) Because the previous text used ellipses to misrepresent both the source and the facts. Heykal did not threaten the Jews of Arab nations. At this time the Arab states (and the Palestinians) were putting forward every argument they could think of to prevent the passing of the partition resolution. This particular argument was that the resolution would provoke violent popular reactions in the Arab world that would endanger the Jews living there and the Arab states would not be able to control the situation "despite all the sincere efforts of the Governments concerned to prevent such reprisals". There is dramatic exaggeration in his words, but quoting them without the caveat or the context was outrageous. Zero^talk 10:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the ellipses and have no problem with quoting him verbatim. Whether it a threat or not is a more complex question. It depends a lot on the context, so we need to follow secondary sources here.

I don't agree that a press release is not reliable for our purposes. What are the reasons for doubting the authenticity of UN press releases? Alaexis_¿question? 06:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am opposed to adding material that I know to be false or give a false picture. Of course it was in the Zionists' interest to present the Arab statements in the worst possible light and of course their claims are presented as fact by enthusiastically Zionist writers like Gilbert (wrong page number). This is confirmed by the fact that Gilbert's only source is a NYT article which only uses "threat" in the voice of Shertok and uses "warning" otherwise. Disagreement with primary sources is an argument against the reliability of the secondary source, not an excuse to ignore the primary sources. Anyway, Gilbert uses "warned", "cautioned" and only once "threatening". Lawrence J. Epstein is not qualified at all. The third source (also not cited correctly) was written by the "Adviser on the law of Arab countries at the Israel Ministry of Justice" and frequent Israeli government delegate, and so is unreliable a fortiori. It quotes Heykal from the same UN document that I cited and the rest is spin. This article would look entirely different if we presented the Arab spin on Jewish statements in place of what the Jews themselves said, but nobody is trying to do that. I don't see why we should allow the opposite. Zero^talk 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the wrong page number, I've fixed it. I've also replaced the book by Epstein since he's indeed not an expert. I don't agree that Forgotten million is an unreliable source. A biased source is not necessarily unreliable.

I have no problem with "present[ing] the Arab spin on Jewish statements" assuming it's properly sourced and is given due weight.

Also, I don't think that you can *know* this to be false. You can't get into Heykal's head and check whether he was genuinely worried about the Jews in Arab countries. Neither can I, of course, and that's why we need to follow reliable secondary sources. I'm also fine with quoting him directly, it was you who objected to that. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be able to read Heykal's or Husseini's minds. But we are required to judge the reliability of sources and no source is immune from that examination. When a source reports someone as saying something different from what their own sources contain, that's a red flag. When the distortion matches their obvious bias, that's reason to attribute or omit them. Citing an Israeli government source for something like this in wikivoice is simply out of the question and I'm surprised that you suggest it. Next, why do you think a Swiss businessman who publishes books on the Holocaust in a religious publishing house is a reliable source? Incidentally, I found al-Husseini's testimony in the UN records and noticed this "That was not meant as a threat, but to draw attention to the reactions of a policy for which the United Nations would be responsible." So as well as both Heykal and Husseini repeatedly phrasing their prediction as what the Arab states could not prevent, not as what the Arab states threatened, al-Husseini explicitly answered the charge from the Israeli delegate that it was a threat. At the moment you only have Gilbert, who supports you with one word "threatening" while undermining you by quoting "nobody could prevent disorders" and "even though the Arab States may do their best to save their skins" (which comes just before the part I quoted). This isn't a matter of reading minds because nobody is proposing to report what they thought, but only what they said. Gilbert can't read minds either, so his opinion that Heykal meant something different from what he said is just his opinion and has to be attributed. What I can agree to is a sourced statement that some historians regard this as threat, but there is no case to state in wikivoice that it was a threat. Zero^talk 12:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm fine with quoting them directly and letting the reader judge. But then things like "Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world" shouldn't be removed.

Of course Al-Husseini would say it wasn't a threat, but it doesn't mean we should automatically believe him. Please bring RS that interpret his and Heykal's words differently and we'll update the wording. Alaexis_¿question? 14:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

At Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war, it has the following:

After the Partition vote, some Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine. For example, they spoke of "driving the Jews into the sea" or ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".

According to the Israeli traditional historiography, these statements reflected the Arab intentions. While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews, he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won. Gelber, on the other hand, regards these public statements as 'meaningless' and judges that the 'actions [of their armies] imply that the aims of the Arab invasion were decidedly limited and focused mainly on saving Arab Palestine from total Jewish domination'. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to concentrate more on the aims rather than what political statements were made by this or that person. Notice it doesn't mention threats towards Jews in Arab countries. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References