Misplaced Pages

Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:16, 29 January 2014 editDigDeep4Truth (talk | contribs)273 edits →to PLNR← Previous edit Revision as of 04:28, 29 January 2014 edit undoDigDeep4Truth (talk | contribs)273 edits →Palestine has existed since the times of Jesus, Maps project it as far back as 400 CE: Figured out it was AnonMoos who was posting? improved a reply using historic referance instead of DogmaNext edit →
Line 211: Line 211:
Palestine has existed since the times of Jesus (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), Maps project it as far back as 400 CE Palestine has existed since the times of Jesus (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), Maps project it as far back as 400 CE
* http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts * http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts
* http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=5.4635&centerX=0.2820&centerY=0.5588 <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> * http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=5.4635&centerX=0.2820&centerY=0.5588 ] (]) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
**But back then, "Palestinian" meant Jewish. It was not until the 1900s that the Arabs usurped the word Palestinian. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> **But back then, "Palestinian" meant Jewish. It was not until the 1900s that the Arabs usurped the word Palestinian. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
***That is hearsay, not correct. Please read it directly. Visit the following 400 CE Map link http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=6.5562&centerX=0.2848&centerY=0.5562 ~~ And consult the 1947 Jewish Land Distribution Map ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Jewish_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg ~~ Hebrew Jews were located in "Phoenice", and a few in "Phoe.Libam" who came from Russia and managed to break the Ottoman land purchase laws https://en.wikipedia.org/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#cite_note-Ocak2002-7 and '''Still next to no one claiming to be a Jew owned lands in "]" as the classic map depicting 400 CE indicates modern Jews were in "]" and may be why Hebrew speakers claim Phoenician Language descent, even though the Phoneticians invaded the ] and then converted to Aramaic Religion, even adopting their Writing systems, which 21st Century Jews now falsely called things like "Proto-Hebrew" or "Paleo-Hebrew" or "Biblical-Hebrew" when they are plainly "]".''' <br /> 122.143.3.67 Note: you below here, mention Jesus is not Palestinian; the writing systems Jesus might have known would in reality be as such, "Jewish (is a religion) ] (is a geographical dialect)" http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts and possibly other Aramaic Dialects the Greek Gospels came from, to be map out elsewhere at a later date. = (Get an account and track my UserPage). ] (]) 06:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) ***That is hearsay, not correct. Please read it directly. Visit the following 400 CE Map link http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=6.5562&centerX=0.2848&centerY=0.5562 ~~ And consult the 1947 Jewish Land Distribution Map ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Jewish_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg ~~ Hebrew Jews were located in "Phoenice", and a few in "Phoe.Libam" who came from Russia and managed to break the Ottoman land purchase laws https://en.wikipedia.org/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#cite_note-Ocak2002-7 and '''Still next to no one claiming to be a Jew owned lands in "]" as the classic map depicting 400 CE indicates modern Jews were in "]" and may be why Hebrew speakers claim Phoenician Language descent, even though the Phoneticians invaded the ] and then converted to Aramaic Religion, even adopting their Writing systems, which 21st Century Jews now falsely called things like "Proto-Hebrew" or "Paleo-Hebrew" or "Biblical-Hebrew" when they are plainly "]".''' <br />
----- -----
DigDeep4Truth -- the name "Philistia" and slight variants probably goes back before 1000 B.C., but it was not too commonly used to refer to areas beyond the southern coastal plain until ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province of "IVDAEA" (Judea) to "PALAESTINA" (Palestine) for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the ]. Since Jesus did not come from the southern coastal plain area (and never even travelled there, as far as can be determined from the New Testament), therefore during his lifetime he would not have referred to himself or been referred to by others as "Palestinian"...<br> DigDeep4Truth -- the name "Philistia" and slight variants probably goes back before 1000 B.C., but it was not too commonly used to refer to areas beyond the southern coastal plain until ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province of "IVDAEA" (Judea) to "PALAESTINA" (Palestine) for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the ]. Since Jesus did not come from the southern coastal plain area (and never even travelled there, as far as can be determined from the New Testament), therefore during his lifetime he would not have referred to himself or been referred to by others as "Palestinian"...<br>
122.143.3.67 -- From 1917 to 1948 the word "Palestinian" was used to refer to all the inhabitants of the British-administered territory, including both Arabs and Jews. Before that time, the word "Palestine" was rather vague in meaning, and was used much more often by Europeans than actual inhabitants of the area. Not sure when "Palestinian" would have meant "Jew"... ] (]) 14:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 122.143.3.67 -- From 1917 to 1948 the word "Palestinian" was used to refer to all the inhabitants of the British-administered territory, including both Arabs and Jews. Before that time, the word "Palestine" was rather vague in meaning, and was used much more often by Europeans than actual inhabitants of the area. Not sure when "Palestinian" would have meant "Jew"... ] (]) 14:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
: Look at the Map -> http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=6.5562&centerX=0.2848&centerY=0.5562 <br />
Jerusalem is clearly in Palaeftina and Jesus did travel there. Where did you get a different idea from?

Revision as of 04:28, 29 January 2014

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconInternational relations: United Nations / Law
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 29, 2005, November 29, 2006, November 29, 2007, November 29, 2008, and November 29, 2010.

Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Trahelliven: You continue to delete against Misplaced Pages rules. please restore

Trahelliven: You continue to delete against Misplaced Pages rules. please restore.

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

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

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

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

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

Ykantor
1 As far as I am aware you are the only editor who has accused me of vandalism.
2 You have accused me of a number of acts of vandalism in relation to this article.
3 Perhaps you might indicate which you wish to talk about first. Trahelliven (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible POV issues

Issue 1

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

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

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

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

Issue 2

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

Extended content
In the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, Great Britain agreed to "recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within" a large portion of the Ottoman Empire. Differences of interpretation arose in relation to whether Palestine was included in the British undertaking. In exchange, the Arabs agreed to revolt against the Ottomans. In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration, which expressed British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine. Based in part on these arguably contradictory promises, both Jews and Arabs came to believe that the British had promised them an independent state in Palestine.


The Paris Peace Conference (including the Treaty of Sèvres), and the San Remo Conference, laid the foundations for the British Mandate of Palestine. After much debate concerning Jewish and Arab claims to the land, the following compromise language acknowledging the Balfour Declaration was included in the Mandate: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country." On 24 July 1922, the Mandate was approved by the League of Nations. On 16 September 1922 the League approved the Transjordan memorandum exempting the portions of the Mandate east of the Jordan River from the provisions concerning a Jewish National Home and Immigration. This territory eventually became the nation of Jordan.

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

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

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

Issue 3

  • PLNR - What is the source for the statement you recently added: "The United Kingdom, occupied the territory in 1918 following the Armistice of Mudros." British occupation of Palestine began in 1917 (see e.g Morris 2001 pg 31: "Jerusalem had fallen to Allenby in December 1917; Beirut, on October 8, 1918—a week after the Arabs entered Damascus. The Ottoman Empire was no more." In any case unsourced material introduced into articles can (and should be) removed on sight. Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Just because several countries put troops on the ground in Normandy, doesn't mean you were occupying parts of France... occupation is legal term, so while British occupation there might have began in 1917, its officially formalized as part of the Armistice of Mudros.--PLNR (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in your opinions on the topics. If you have a WP:RS to support the statement it can be re-added. If you don't it stays out. Dlv999 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have picked a better example, I assumed it was common knowledge. As for interests nor me nor Wiki policy is particular interested in play on words between "occupied" and "occupation ..began in" or WP:SYN?(concerning when Jerusalem or any other part was occupied). The fact is that the British Palestine campaign officially(occupied) ended with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918(you can read about it here: Sinai and Palestine Campaign) if you still want a source, add a citation needed template and I'll dig several for you.--PLNR (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, every addition you make to the encyclopaedia needs to be verifiable. It is one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages. See WP:VERIFIABILITY: " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - Any additions you make to the encyclopaedia, not directly supported by an RS, can be removed on sight. Debating your own views on talk without supplying source evidence is not going to change that. By the way, Misplaced Pages articles are not WP:RS - see WP:CIRCULAR.Dlv999 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Simple Yes, would have sufficed. Like I said I have no problem to copy&paste a source from the main article, find one or simply change the wording to accommodate your objection. However, in general I have learned to be vary of well intention people on arbitration articles, who quick to quote big policy, dig info to contradict and removed on sight, while other long time taged info remain untouched, some times it indicate whitewashing of specific inclusion/exclusions. As I implied with Issues 1-2 above, this article isn't exactly NPOV by giving undue weight to various events and exclusion of notable information, although it seems like it was all made gradually with policy based arguments.--PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yankor - With reference to wikipedia policy and source evidence could you please explain on what grounds you have tagged the sourced quote in the article as "neutrality disputed". Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It should be removed instead. Its nothing but POV pushing veiled in quotes. --PLNR (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It is pointless commenting here unless you are able to provide rational evidence/policy based justifications for your assertions. Dlv999 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The quote is a clear POV against the Balfour declaration. e.g. The Arabs acts a drawers of water to the Jews. Is that correct? It should be balanced with a pro Balfour declaration view. Moreover, it is not supported at all. How do we know that Kurzon really said so? Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is policy and on top of one sided commentary, do you have any policy based rational behind adding this direct quotation and its reverence to the topic: "..as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter" care to explain this in policy based rational?--PLNR (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's quoted in a WP:RS as relevant to the topic . Our WP:NPOV policy tells us to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is a significant view that has been published by RS on the topic therefore it should be included per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Firstly it is not the "Arab POV" it is that of a British government official who succeeded Balfour as Foreign Secretary. Second saying it is the Arab POV would not be a legitimate reason to exclude a viewpoint from the article. WP:NOV says we should include all significant views and the Arab Palestinian perspective is obviously significant on this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Lord Curzon was one member of the Cabinet and despite his opinion, the Cabinet approved Balfour declaration. I am still waiting for you to show why a minority view of one of the Cabinet members concerning the Balfour declaration, declaration which was later endorsed by France and Italy in 1918, and by the league of nations in 1922. Is notable in the context of the Partition Plan and shouldn't be removed.
As for POV. I was very amused to find comment in one of the commissions concerning the partition, noting how through the conflict both Jews and Arabs were crying fiercely: "This land is mine". Of course presenting only one of the views in quotes or otherwise is violation of NPOV.--PLNR (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

It is fairly clear that your own views on the topic (and what is important about the topic) is quite different to what published academic experts have written (and regard as important by including in their published material). There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem arises when you try to promote your own views above what has been published by academic experts. you say that Curzon's view was a minority in the Cabinet. True. But Misplaced Pages policy tells us to include all significant viewpoints published in RS (both majority and minority). On a more general note, it seems to me that you are working through the article trying to delete all the well sourced information that might indicate why the Arabs had very sound rational reasons to oppose Zionism and the partition plan. It is right that this information (where well sourced) is included, we are not here to create some one sided propaganda piece where the reader would have no notion at all why the Arabs rejected the plan and the Zionist project in their homeland. Dlv999 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of accusation and general WP:IDONTLIKEIT, do you have any policy based argument supported by WP:RS :
  • "Lord Curzon, who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary," - violation of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE.
  • "Arab inhabitants of Palestine that occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years" introduce bias, in violation of NPOV.
  • That Curzon's view in context of the Partition Plan(NOT the Balfour declaration article) - WP:UNDUE.
Off topic: As for "Arabs had very sound rational reasons to oppose Zionism", I agree, but this section is about how Partition plan conceptualized and POV Pushing arab(or Jewish) reasons into it is not OK. If you have any concerns about any part I can easily explain my rational for.--PLNR (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
As already discussed the material is already sourced to an appropriate WP:RS. WP:NPOV says we include all significant published viewpoints (even minority ones). Your objections seem to be based in a misunderstanding of the core policies of the encyclopaedia, which has also led you into a problematic edit pattern of deleting sourced material while adding unsourced claims to the article. Including the viewpoints of significant parties is not "POV pushing" - we are supposed to include all significant published viewpoints. Dlv999 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Asserting that it is sourced to WP:RS and NPOV, while time and time again failing to support that it is WP:DUE in the context of this article isn't a discussing.
Concerning "who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary," I am going to remove it, since it is a clear violation of WP:SYN which gives WP:UNDUE weight to Curzon statement.
Concerning the later two points, before you continue to argue policy, to keep this distinctly minority view, which isn't directly about the subject of the article. So you can push Arab POV. I suggest that you take a minute and read the article again and see if this course will improve it and benefit the reader(notion concerning why the Arabs/Jews rejected/accepted the plan are presented in reactions, while the background covers how the plan was conceptualized) Because honestly I am not going to continue arguing with someone whose idea of discussion is digging his heels, without being able to articulate his rational other than in some vague bumpersticker statements, however, I will redirect the topic by following your assertions and make several big additions/changes to that paragraph through WP:RS. (see also #Lehi and Nazi collaboration section) --PLNR (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Dlv999, regarding your edits: , i.e.
The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes, but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, except for its fringes.
Sticking to the source is great as long as you don't misrepresent them, but do you have a rational for using different terminology in both parts of the sentence? Whats wrong with 'Jewish public' like 'Arab Public'? or for example use Jewish Agency which was the Jewish representatives in those years(including in UNSCOP) or just say along with the rest of Zionist movement? Because it looks like the purpose is to emphasis the term Zionist. --PLNR (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Writing Misplaced Pages articles is about accurately representing what has been written in reliable sources (See our core policies WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV). If you are doing anything other than accurately representing what the cited source says, you are not following policy. Your proposal's are not consistent with the source, so there is nothing really more to say here, unless you can find an RS to support your proposals, in which case you are free to make the changes. Dlv999 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
to Dlv999, yet a lead should represent a summary of the article. Which use similar language to the variants I suggested, or the ones currently used in the second half of the sentence. So basing the lead wording on one source as opposed to summary of all the sources in the article is not Ok. --PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I still resist it. Some of the Arabs did not oppose it because they had their own agendas. Some may have not opposed it simply because they were uneducated and had no idea what it was all about. Perhaps some did not even direct their minds to it because they did not live in Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The same argument can be said of Jews, so why change\expand the wording on one side of the sentence and not the other. After all its 'Arab state' and 'Jewish state', then 'Arab public\leaders\international interest' and 'Zionist'. --PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The right word "Zionist". Talking about "Jewish" is misleading given that it is the the Zionist project that had the nationilist ambition of building a Jewish State in Palestine, not the Jews (who didn't constitute a political entity).
  • The situation is more complex on the Arab side than on the Zionist side. If nearly Arab leaders were opposed to the Partition, and even any partition (sic), that is not the case for all Arabs. 1. King of Transjordan was favorable to the Partition (with the mind of annexing the Arab side) and most of the Palestinian Arab population didn't really care. As reported by historians, most of the Palestinian Arab village passed agreement with the Zionist. Both these are reported by historians and therefore we should take this into account in the wordings.
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Pluto2012, The complexity of the Arab situation as it pertains to our case is irrelevant, Bottom line is that except for some fringes, they rejected it. Choosing to naming all Arab factions doesn't change that. Just the same naming 'Jewish public and Jewish Agency, along with the rest of the Zionist movement, except for its fringes' doesn't change the bottom line. So go either one way or the other in both parts.--PLNR (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you: the complexity is relevant. Abdallah was a key actor of the war and the strategy of partition, being the man of the British.
And a disctinction must be made between, Arab and Arab leaders and between Palestinian Arabs and Arabs given their behaviour and goals were different.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Distinction is made, only not in the context the lead. Since except for its fringes Arabs agreed to disagree, so the statement "rejected by Arabs except for some fringes" is just as valid. Your choice to provide distinction server no purpose in the context of the lead other than to provide exposition on who the key Arab players are, I have no problem with that, as long as you provide similar exposition concerning Jewish key players as well i.e. 'Jewish public and Jewish Agency, along with the rest of the Zionist movement, except for its fringes'.
p.s. to make sure we don't railroad, I am speaking about the current lead as outlined above. It has nothing todo with your discussion with AnonMoos concerning Abdullah. If and when that discussion bear fruit\changes, then it would be relevant to me --PLNR (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
They didn't act as a whole. On the contrary, the Yishuv was united.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Pluto2012 -- There weren't too many non-Zionist Jews in mandatory Palestine in 1947, and they had very little impact on events. In any case, the official representative body was the "Jewish Agency", the partition plan spoke of a "Jewish state" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless the cited source clearly states Zionists, and our job is to accurately reflect RS, not to make OR arguments. If you want to put something different, you are going to have to find RS to support it. Dlv999 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
AnonMoos -- Jews of Palestine didn't support the Partition because they were Jews. They supported it because they were Zionists. And there is nothing pejorative in the term "Zionist". The Jewish Agency depended on World Zionist Organisation.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Trahelliven -- As has been gone over several times before, the only Arabs who were publicly in favor of partition were the Moscow-line Communists, who followed every twist and turn of comrade Stalin's policies unquestioningly. Abdullah of Transjordan was in favor of the plan in private negotiations IF the Arab state in the plan would be annexed to Transjordan BUT was not willing to come out publicly in support of the plan. Any other Arabs who might possibly have been in favor of some form of partition had already been pretty much intimidated into silence by 1947. All Arab states, as well as the Arab League and the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, were unanimously against any form of partition. As far as the British and the United Nations were concerned, all relevant official or quasi-official sources of information indicated that the Arabs rejected the plan. For us at this late date to attempt to conduct some kind of hypothetical retroactive opinion poll would be blatant original research of the worst kind... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Except Abdallah who was in favor of a Partition and a significative part of the Palestinian Arab population who didn't care. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
As has been gone over multiple times here, Abdullah of Transjordan was in favor of the plan in private negotiations IF AND ONLY IF the Arab state in the plan would be annexed to Transjordan BUT was not willing to come out publicly in support of the plan. He was an opponent as far as public diplomacy went. And a significant part of the Arabs in mandatory Palestine thought that whichever Arab state played a leading role in strangling Israel at birth and "throwing the Jews into the sea" would naturally annex most or all of Palestine, which would then be a step towards Arab unification... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
So he was in favor of the partition (and he is not fringe).
And should we refer to the fact Ben Gurion was in favor "if and only if" this was the basis for the conquest of the remaining ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
You know very well that the Ben Gurion comment referred to the 1937 Peel Plan, which was very different from the 1947 U.N. plan. And none of your tendentiousness does anything to change the fact that from the British and United Nations perspective, all relevant official or quasi-official sources of information indicated that the Arabs rejected the plan, while the Jewish community accepted. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
to AnonMoos: You are definitely right. The Arabs rejected the partition with few fringes, like the Egyptian newspaper that I have added recently. Nashashibi family and Abdula partially accepted the partition. i.e They agreed to the Jewish state but have not agreed to an Arab state.

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

The Nashashibi family consistently came out on the losing side of a long series internal Arab power struggles during the whole British mandate period, and really didn't count for much in 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion, if any, stops here. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

to PLNR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, for providing me with background relating to this issue(Any chance for the DRN link?). Personally, I have no objection with large part of your variant(until the reactions), though I am likely not qualified to comment on an issue which required a DRN. Still I would like to press the issue of noting the "Jewish Agency" at some capacity. Which was the official Jewish representative at several British committees, UNSCOP, accepted the UN resolution(later declared the state) and noted heavily through out this article. (e.g. see this UN publication from the article http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf ).--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that "Jewish Agency" is better than "Zionist movement" for the same reason as "fringe" is not a good choice. It is better to stick precisely to facts.
here is the link.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you Crazy? Why make this 'myopic' by removing "Zionist Movement" from the facts. "Jewish Agency" did not do the work by itself and was not the only party who represented religious desires to have a legally mandated Crusade authorized by the United Nations. You can't take about the creation of Israel without telling the story of Harry S Truman and his Masonic friend who was a Jew, that convinced him to order out all the Arabics and make space for Religion occupation of a land by foreigners. Zionist Movement also involves the KKK in the United States actively lobbying to have the Jews leave America and return to Israel. As it is Mandatory Palestine was planned. Catholic Italy attacked Libya, to cause the Ottoman to side against then. Then without a war being fought in Palestine, Britain claimed it as War spoils to Occupy. How can you ignore the midnight meeting of the UN and Truman sunrise signature as a Zionist Plot to keep out countries, citizens, and governments that would have objected to the creation of Israel in one move? America was trying to make Einstein their First President but he objected. You can no remove United States of America's participation at UNSCOP on behalf of all Jews. We destroyed Iraq, carpet bombed every cave that might house a religious scroll cause Israel is fed up with too many scrolls, and then murdered 400 Scholars so that Iraq could not block the Israeli occupation and invasion of Palestine or reveal the Torah was in Aramaic before Phoenicians invaded and then converted into the Aramaic faith while in Phoenice. www.amazon.com/Cultural-Cleansing-Iraq-Libraries-Academics/dp/0745328121 Stand with me and don't let people make small, what is so much larger than one Border. America pays $3.1 Billion to Israel every single year to fund a Military invasion of Palestine. Don't make little of the death these countries. -- DigDeep4Truth (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lehi and Nazi collaboration

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

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

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

I think too that the the attempts of collaboration between Lehi and the Nazis are not relevant for this article, whereas they are proven. Indeed, this collaboration (dating back the beginning of WWI) had no impact on the Partition Plan and the vote of 1947. I don't have any mind any article or scholar book where this collaboration would be mentionned in the context of the Partition Plan.
So, policy WP:Undue would apply here.
Pluto2012 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1918 population

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

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

1937 Peel Commission reaction

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

  • I can't comment on the text you reference, since I don't know if its the document discussed in the source, but I have recently read about this. It is my understanding that both 'Zionist Organization' and 'Jewish Agency' adopted resolutions in favor of Partition but rejecting the details of the Peel plan(which iirc wasn't a full plan but more of a collection of principle). --PLNR (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
They adopted resolutions in favor of establishment of a Jewish state. More than that needs a pretty good reference. They knew that they wouldn't get more than a small part of Palestine in a partition, since they were only a small part of the population. Some, like Ben-Gurion, would have accepted partition as a starting point with the long term aim of taking more (as he made very clear). Zero 13:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "the Congress decided to reject the specific borders recommended by the Peel Commission but empowered its executive to negotiate a more favorable plan for a Jewish State in Palestine."jewish virtual library
  • ref name="Cesarani1996p231"> cite book|author=David Cesarani|title=The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1LeGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA231%7Cdate=19 September 1996|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-74421-3|pages=231–|quote="The struggle at Zurich was long and bitter. Weizmann’s argument won some support among American Zionists, resulting in a serious split in the ZOA and Hadassah delegations. Silver, Wise, Szold and their supporters (including Louis Brandeis back in the United States) opposed Weizmann and the division of the Holy Land, while those delegates, including Louis Lipsky, who had supported Wcizmann in the past continued to do so. Finally, the Zionist Congress passed a resolution authorizing the Zionist Executive to negotiate with the British in the hope of winning better boundaries for the proposed Jewish state. The resolution, however, prohibited the Executive from agreeing to any particular proposal without first getting the approval of another World Zionist Congress" Ykantor (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1937 Peel Commission transfer

  • Also concerning your recent edit in this section . The report text says(third paragraph):
Extended content
If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population.

The Treaties should provide that, if Arab owners of land in the Jewish State or Jewish owners of land in the Arab State should wish to sell their land and any plantations or crops thereon, the Government of the State concerned should be responsible for the purchase of such land, plantations and crops at a price to be fixed, if requires, by the Mandatory Administration. For this purpose a loan should, if required, be guaranteed for a reasonable amount.

The political aspect of the land problem is still more important. Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa. The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition. If the settlement is to be clean and final, the question must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned.
I see the numbers that you quoted, but I am little bit confused concerning the bold part, and lack of final numbers if such decision would be made. Do you have any Secondary source to confirm your wording? Also in all the sources I read, the Peel Commission is noted for concluding the Mandate is unworkable and recommending the Partition for the first time(its also notable in the context of 1936-1939 revolt, Peel/Woodhead/39White Paper and ww1) I don't recall seeing anyone noting the population exchange clause, certainly not in such details, for a report whose details was rejected by all. So why do you think it is notable here?--PLNR (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The part with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv was proposed for continuing as a mandated territory whose disposition would be left to the future. No short-term transfer of its population is proposed. If you'd prefer a secondary source, there are many. Morris, Righteous Victims, p139 says it in almost identical terms: "Peel made a second recommendation as a corollary to partition: an "exchange of population" between the prospective states—the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 Jews." (and he keeps writing "exchange" with scare quotes). Or we could use a statement without actual numbers like "..which for the most part would involve the resettlement of Arabs living within territory proposed for the Jewish state" (p242 of Tessler, History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). Quite a lot of authors don't even mention that a tiny fraction (0.55%) of the transferred persons would be Jews and describe it just as a transfer of Arabs. The previous text encouraged the reader to assume there was some sort of balanced exchange proposed, which is far from the truth. Zero 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Question of Balance should be addressed in the context of the full Peel Commission report, not implied through a specific clause of one of the chapters without proper context, otherwise you introduce POV. Which is why the previous wording was preferable as it was neutral and informative, providing a solution and point of reference to the frontier/friction problem.--PLNR (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Balance requirements apply to every article. There is nothing balanced or neutral about writing "population exchange" without the context that 199 in every 200 persons would be Arab. Zero 09:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Expanding on my previous post, there was nothing "balanced" in the Greeko\Turkish population exchange figures as well. Balance implies compensation, financing of large scale development projects and other considerations. You are more then welcome to address this issue in length on the peel commission article. However, here its undue and replace neutral and informative entry, and point of reference concerning a considered Partition principle, with unnecessary details that lack context and adds nothing to the Partition Plan (no wonder that quite a lot of authors don't even mention them). Serving only your misguided notion that proposed exchange of population implies equal numbers?! It is like saying that exchange of land implies implies equal square footage.--PLNR (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the previous language was unsourced. So what has happened is an unverifiable entry has been replaced by an entry that is sourced and accurately reflects how the topic is covered by expert secondary sources. If you are interested in learning, this is a good example of how to improve the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I was wondering what has happened to improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to POV pushing on the laurels of policy you see around(i.e. game the system). Jumping in the middle to argue policy, you missed the fact that added source isn't secondary, but primary source, which fully covers both variant. Also I am certain that beside accuracy your are also familiar with concept such as representing in fair, proportionate and notable way in the context of a specific topic. So this sidetracking aside, I am still waiting for someone to provide WP based rational for that inclusion, addressing what I said in the previous two posts.--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Now it has a secondary source as well. The content is not disputed by historians. The rationale is telling readers about the facts. You should stop flogging this dead horse. Zero 09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
e/c: Zero already cited Benny Morris in his comment timestamped 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC). The WP based argument is that it is sourced to a gold standard academic secondary source. Including the sourced material will mean our article will be more consistent with how the topic is covered by academic experts. You bandy around "POV pushing" charge, but your pattern of editing reveals you adding unsourced content while at the same time deleting and arguing for the deletion of well sourced material. You will not find that kind of edit pattern if you look at my edit history. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, it is not that hard, just because something is quoted in WP:RS doesn't mean it is relevant and notable here. In your quote Morris speaks about the 'Peal commission', not about 'Partition Plan'. All you have to do is show why it is notable in the context of the Partition Plan.(i.e. Peel Commission is notable, due to being the first to say Mandate is unworkable and suggest partition, and the plan details were). Otherwise I can quote a book dealing with international treats, which discuss the peel commission and spam the paragraph with details about 'Civil Services' and 'Industrial Concessions' using your arguments to support it word for word.

I didn't mind to entertain the previous wording because it was somewhat informative and meaningful addition. in the sense that the reader could better understand the suggested principle by reading about the Greeko\Turkish case. I am saying principle, because there are no operative articles or any specifics concerning implementation, which is why the commission referenced the Greeko\Turkish case in the first place. Meanwhile, your version is pointless, those numbers doesn't add to the reader understanding how the Partition plan conceptualize, not what an exchange would entail(lacking context) nor used later on, their whole purpose is to introduce POV, to implying that it was unfair deal.--PLNR (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

UNSCOP affair

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

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

Palestine has existed since the times of Jesus, Maps project it as far back as 400 CE

Palestine has existed since the times of Jesus (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), Maps project it as far back as 400 CE

DigDeep4Truth -- the name "Philistia" and slight variants probably goes back before 1000 B.C., but it was not too commonly used to refer to areas beyond the southern coastal plain until ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province of "IVDAEA" (Judea) to "PALAESTINA" (Palestine) for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt. Since Jesus did not come from the southern coastal plain area (and never even travelled there, as far as can be determined from the New Testament), therefore during his lifetime he would not have referred to himself or been referred to by others as "Palestinian"...
122.143.3.67 -- From 1917 to 1948 the word "Palestinian" was used to refer to all the inhabitants of the British-administered territory, including both Arabs and Jews. Before that time, the word "Palestine" was rather vague in meaning, and was used much more often by Europeans than actual inhabitants of the area. Not sure when "Palestinian" would have meant "Jew"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the Map -> http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=6.5562&centerX=0.2848&centerY=0.5562

Jerusalem is clearly in Palaeftina and Jesus did travel there. Where did you get a different idea from?

  1. International Boundary Study: Jordan – Syria Boundary (PDF), United States Department of State, 30 December 1969, p. 8, retrieved 28 November 2011
  2. Balfour Declaration. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 12 August 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
  3. New Statesman Interview – Jack Straw
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mansfield1992 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Categories: