Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:39, 16 March 2006

Deleted: The shore plain, previously swampy, was developed into a zone suitable for agriculture by the Jews. Reason: Although there were some areas of swamp that were drained by the Jews (with British help) they were only a small part of the coastal plain. Most of the coastal plain had been heavily cultivated for centuries. -- zero 13:28, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NICE MAPS! BL 21:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Glad you like them. About to rearrange some of the other map references, since these local maps seem to have survived without objection for a while. Jamesday 15:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did a bit more than just maps. Notes on my edits:

• Removed part of a sentence about 1/4 Arab because it conflicted with 1/3 Arab in the preceding sentence.
• Changed Palestinian to Arab in various places. In the context of the partition of Palestine, every resident of the territory is Palestinian, so we need to use Arab instead.
• Dropped "terrorist" from Irgun and Lehi piece when I wikified the links to them and noted that they were fighting the British, which seems to convey the same point in a less contentious way.
• Question: What parts of the land allocated to the Arab state does Israel today claim as "Israel" and what parts does it identify as occupied, autonomous, otherwise not part of Israel proper or otherwise conceivably open to returning to the Arab state area as part of a land return for peace deal comparable to the one which led to peace with Egypt? A (brief!) description of this would be good for the final paragraph, showing how subsequent events developed but we don't want to cover all of the controversy here - just add a little historic context on how the land split has turned out so far. Jamesday 16:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am goin to put in: "The Jewish state was also given access to the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee (the largest source of fresh water in Palestine); this was a privilage denied to the Arab state." I think there is nothing inaccurate in those statements. bless_sins Feb.1/06

I am not immediately including the following: Although in many cases, areas of Arab majority and Jewish minority were also included in the Jewish state. Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev), were included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration in order to relieve the Jewish Problem But I would like to do so ASAP, in order highlight the basis for partition. Please tell me if there is anything inaccurate about it.User:bless_sinsFeb.1/06

"Jewish settlements" map

I'm removing the "Jewish settlements" map because it is hardly NPOV:

• The yellow area is unlabeled, but when viewed together with the partition map, one get the impression that the yellow area is all populated by Arabs. In fact, much of it (including the entire southern Negev) was virtually unpopulated. Overall, the map creates the impression that Palestine was an Arab land, with a tiny scattered Jewish community. In fact, as the text of the article states, the population was approximately 1/3 Jewish.
• It uses the term "settlements", thus ignoring Jewish population living in the land for centuries in cities like Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias. Also, the term "settlements" has gained certain connotations in recent years, since it's applied to Jewish population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

uriber 11:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Uriber's complaint is reasonable. We should be able to find a map that shows the whole population distribution. I'm leaving for a week but if nobody finds something suitable before I return then I'll look for it. --Zero 12:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Jewish population which had been living in the cities for centuries was not very significant in terms of numbers - about 18,000 based on the 1882 census (plus some 10,000 non-native Jews from the circa 1870-1882 Montefiores, Rothschilds and Russian First Aliyah). That's about 3% of the Jewish population at the time of partition. The Zionist settlers plus immigrants during and just after the Nazi period are the really significant factor in terms of Jewish population. What the map shows is that the Jewish population was relatively concentrated and that the borders were drawn to encompass most of that concentrated population in the Jewish state. The border did so, placing 498,000 Jews in the Jewish state and 10,000 in the Arab state. Zero, good luck with finding something which does a better job of showing why the borders were drawn as they were - if you can find anything I'm definitely interested - good and usable maps are tough to find! Jamesday 16:11, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence

I'm having trouble understanding the following line:

Much was owned by Jewish interests (about 7% of the area of Palestine) or the state.

Could someone please rephrase?

Source

The Arab leadership opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). They criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel. The Jews had been offered 55% percent of the land when they owned 6.5% of it. However, it should be noted that over 70% of the land area (which was mostly desert) was state-owned. The population for the proposed Jewish State would be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews. The population for the proposed Arab State would be 807,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews. The population for the proposed International Zone would be 105,000 non-Jews and 100,000 Jews.

What are the sources for this? —Simetrical (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"roughly 20% of land was owned by Arab individuals and villages."

There is no source for this. The widely accepted number is about half (0r 47%) of the land owned by arabs.bless_sins

Question of refugees

Someone (I think jayjg) keep on deleting the Palestinian refugees caused by this plan. The person however, doesn't remove, or adds the Jewish refugees. I think both refugees should be linked to. (If anything the Palestinian refugees were the more immediate effect of this war. The Palestinian refugees were created in 1948-9, whereareas the Jewish refugees were created from 1948-67) User:bless_sins

Issue of land ownership.

Although I put in some percentages, I would disagree with the figures presented by Ian. I think we should discuss the issue here.

Personally I think that Jews owned 7% of Palestine, the Arab privately owned 47%, and the rest was public property. But there is very few evidence to back my claims, so I have decided to leave Ian's claims alone. what do you guys think??

Bless sins 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I included the actual figures, rather than the percentages so that people can understand how the latter can be presented in different ways. The references are there if anyone wants to check. Needless to say books published by university presses are better sources than the Jewish Virtual Library. I think we should stick with the figures. For a more detailed discussion see here --Ian Pitchford 09:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that your sources are better than the Jewish Virtual Library. At this time, I am not objecting to your sources or your figures. But why exaclty should we not put in actual percentages? PErhaps in a different paragraph? 172.171.132.201 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If the percentages are available in a good publication we can cite then it would be fine to include them. If we just calculate the percentages and then put them in the article it will look as though they are sourced to the two publications mentioned when in fact both only give raw figures I've included. --Ian Pitchford 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored all opinions. I'd like to see exactly what Fischbach says on the subject; it appears from Ian's presentation that Fischbach is stating that, for example, all miri lands (and perhaps matruk and mawat lands) were actually "owned" by private Arab owners. As I'm sure Ian knows, absolute ownership of miri lands (and the others) rested with the State. Jayjg 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see better sources than web sites (which are really, for the most part, no better than self-published books), especially as the figures are not consistent with those from the JNF and the Custodian of Absentee Property, but this is something we can work on. A more serious problem is that the article claims falsely that the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, which of course they didn't. They announced acceptance (document in the UN archive), while collaborating with Transjordan in the hope of preventing the creation of an Arab state. --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the use of land, can you say exactly how Fischbach arrives at his figures, or quote him? How does he treat issues like miri land? Regarding the Jewish Agency, I'm not really up on that history, who says that they were secretly collaborating with Transjordan? Jayjg 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the issue of websites, in some ways you're correct, though different websites have different degrees of reliability. However, when someone like Mitchell Bard references a specific page in a book by Aumann for his figures, that's hardly any different that, well, Ian Pitchford referencing a specific page in a book by Fischbach for his figures. Jayjg 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is extremely irrelevant: "According to Mitchell Bard (citing Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine), in terms of the land that would eventually become Israel, 9% of the land was owned by Jews, 3% by Arabs who became citizens of Israel, and 18% by Arabs who left the country."

The section is termed "The Division". Israel would not be formed until mor than a year later. Also the borders of the would be Israel would have nothing to do with the UN Plan, and more with Israeli military victories. Also, in 1948, few people predicted that Palestinians would be leaving thier homes.

Bless sins 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should create a new article in which various claims of land ownership are discussed.

Bless sins 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was wrong to remove well refenced numbers. I don't see how these numbers are "extremely irrelevant", just the opposite. ←Humus sapiens 04:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather absurd to remove well-referenced sections on land ownership, simply because they contradict your view. What is irrelevant is your rationale for removing the information; what on earth would peoples predictions of Palestinians leaving their homes have to do with anything? If you want to remove all land ownership information, that is another issue. Jayjg 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In my previous post, I highlighted the part that says in terms of the land that would eventually become Israel.

Why are the borders set by the 1949 armistice agreements of any relevence here?? Esp. in the divison section?? The 1949 borders and the UN partition plan (the division) borders are totally different. they have nothing to do with each other. Your comments would be well suited in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war section, but not here. Bless sins 19:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The information clearly shows a vastly different view of how much land Arabs owned, and the overlap between the two areas is rather obvious. If we're going to have competing claims of land ownership, then the gamut of views must be represented. Jayjg 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that differing views should be presented. But once again: this is not relevent. This talks about the land ownerhsip within the 1949 armistice lines. What do the armistice lines ("what eventually became Israel"), have to do with UN partition plan?

If you can find figures that provide a contrary point of view, but talk specifically of the 1947 UN plan, then you are more than welcome to post them here.

Bless sins 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that a cited source which shows wildly different land ownership than is claimed by other sources is "irrelevant"? Could it possibly have to do with the fact that this particular source insists that Arabs did not own nearly as much land as the source you preferred? Jayjg 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is because the land onwership this refers to is that of "what eventually became Israel". The borders of israel have nothing do with the UN partition Plan. I have said that several times. Comparing the statistics you back with the U.N is like comparing apples with oranges. Seriously. Pls. respond to this point, and don't try to invent possible reasons for my opposition.

You are more than welcome to post well-sourced statistics that talk of the UN partition plan and NOT of soemthing else. I don't care what those statistics are. I don't care if they say Arabs owned 0% of the land. Bless sins 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe you insist that land included under the 1947 Partition plan had nothing to do with the 1949 Armistice lines; in fact, they include it completely. The information is entirely relevant, and your arguments against it are specious. Also, please do not remove requests for citation; if you have evidence that Arabs made this argument at the time, then bring it forward. Personally I strongly doubt they did; rather, it seems like an argument that Arabs are making today. Jayjg

Jayjg, I'm running out of patience. Please go to 1949 Armistice Agreements for the map that shows the LARGE differences in the Jewish state of 1947 partition plan, and that of 1949 armistice agreements. Your numbers will be well suited in some other article, but not this one.

My second argument is that your figures are (mis)placed in the section "the Division". This talks of what was given to the Arab state, and what was given to Jewish state; hence the basis (and the context) in which the territory was divided. What do Palestinians leaving their homes, and 1949 Armistice lines (both of which happened later on) have to do with the basis or context of the 1947 division???172.138.114.72 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're running out of patience. However, given that the source provided states that Arabs who left what eventually became Israel only owned 18% of the land, and given that the 1949 armistice lines were actually larger than the 1947 plan, and had a much lower percentage of Jewish ownership, this fact is highly significant. The numbers as presented are misleadning. Also, regarding the 55%/6.5% claim, I still need a proper reference that Arabs made that argument back then. Sure, you can find an article with some guy making that argument today, but the article claims that Arabs made the article back then. Who were these Arabs, and where and when did they make that argument? Jayjg 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SO, finally you admit that 1947 Partition Plan HAD NOTHING TO DO with what eventually became Israel. Secondly, the UN partition plan was of British mandate of Palestine, not just of Israel. By presenting facts only about 'what eventually became Israel', you are ignoring the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are no doubt crucial parts of Palestine. Bless sins 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; the 1947 Partition plan had a great deal to what eventually became Israel; Israel encompassed all of it, plus other territory. More importanly, have you read the opening sentence of that entire section? It says "According to Michael Fishbach, of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements etc." In other words, all of the figures there are in relation to the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and none of them are specific to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. If you want to remove all the numbers, you can argue for that, but I don't see any rational justification for arguing for some 1949 numbers but not others. Jayjg 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point. Before I make my counter argument, I would like Ian Pitchford to clarify what "of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements..." means. It could mean whole of the mandate of Palestine, (in which case the quote would be entirely relevent), or it could mean something else.Bless sins 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the argument of Arabs pointing out that Jews only owned 6.5% of the land: Take a look at that article once more Paragraph one: "To clarify the foundational reasons behind the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan, there are four reasons deserving of discussion .." Paragraph seven: the Arab world perceived that the UN were not competent..., perceived is in past tense Other pargraphs are similarly in past tense. Also, we should add some arguments made by this article.

It's a dubious source which itself quotes no other sources; in other words, a modern argument that has been anachronistically foisted on previous generations. Please provide sources which actually enumerate the arguments that were made back then, not arguments that, in hind-sight, modern-day activists wish they had made. Jayjg 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is a "dubious" source. Secondly, I have already explained (see above), how the article claims that the arguments were made 'back-then'. Thridly, the article does refer to othr sources used (scroll down to the bottom and there is a bibliography).Bless sins 09:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the UN figures now and I think I can work out where the 18% figure comes from. I don't know whether I'll have any time soon to add the material to the article. --Ian Pitchford 09:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea at all? It might help solve some problems. Jayjg 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find where the 21% figure (note that the Arabs wouldn't be expelled until after the plan) comes from, and how it relates to the UN partition(it's ALL about relvency) then that would be great.Bless sins 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben Gurion and the New Historians text

Bless sins keeps trying to insert the following text:

this view is supported by statements from David Ben Gurion and other leaders recently discovered by Israel's New Historians and other independent scholars

The link itself is to a very small Christian pro-Palestinian advocacy site affiliated with Sabeel. The article in question appears to possibly be a partial reprint of what may be an August 2002 letter to the editor by a William James Martin in International Socialist Review; it's hard to tell exactly what it is, and the end of it may be cut off. The alleged quotes are of questionable relevance; they purport to be from a letter from Ben Gurion to his son in 1937, over a decade before partition, and are obviously edited by the author, since they are filled with ellipses. The letter itself is only supposed to be from Ben Gurion, not "other leaders", and we have no idea who "discovered" it. The entire thing from start to finish is one of the most dubious uses of "sources" it has been my misfortune to witness on Misplaced Pages. Are there any more questions as to why this source is not appropriate? Jayjg 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can say the same about the Jewish Virtual Library, which is HUGELY biased. Secondly don't criticize a site for being Christian, nor for bieng pro-Palestinian. Thirdly, just because the letter is to Ben Gurion's son, doesn't mean Ben-Gurion didn't say (or write) it. Fourthly, ellipses are common practice to shorten things up, there is nothing "questionable" about them. Also, the Wiki article on Benny Morris supports this claim. Benny Morris, an Israeli New Historian, says (whether rightfully or wrong fully): "From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer (of Arabs out of Israel)..."

This is a confirmation of what Ben Gurion had already said back in 1937. Bless sins 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another evidence that Ben-Gurion, wished to expand. Go to

Read the fourth and the fifth paragrpahs. As you will be able to see, the following site is none other than Haaretz.212.138.47.29 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)