Misplaced Pages

Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Selfstudier (talk | contribs) at 10:41, 30 October 2023 (→Unexplained removal: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:41, 30 October 2023 by Selfstudier (talk | contribs) (→Unexplained removal: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations: United Nations / Law High‑importance
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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance 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 (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBritish Empire
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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, November 29, 2010, November 29, 2014, November 29, 2015, and November 29, 2017.
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!



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.


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

A sentence without sources and not neutral

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

Per section above , "Palumbo notes that 'he Zionists accepted this scheme since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country.' Similarly, Flapan states that ' acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country 'and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction—a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious.” Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Where is the source? I don’t see it in the two links provided next to the sentence in question. Neither is Palumbo or Flapan. Mistamystery (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
See the archives, this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine/Archive_9#Zionists_accepted_the_proposal_POV.
Btw did you receive an email like the one mentioned in the below section Email summons? Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for Nuri al Said quote

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

Basis? This has attestable sources dating as far back to the 1970s. (See: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#"Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanationMistamystery (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It was cited to a novelist and is now gone. Zero 08:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There may be many repetitions of it, but there are no reliable sources. Mcdruid (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Grey areas of UN voting map

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

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

Email summons

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

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

Percentage discrepancy, and the Math isn't mathing

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

The discrepancy I noticed is in the body it says:

"The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine... The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land , was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there."

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

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

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

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

The cite in the lead has a quote attached to it, confirming that it says 62%, was there something else from it that you wanted quoted?
I will take a look at this a bit later and see whether it is possible to reconcile the sources in some fashion, unless someone else does it first. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
No, just confused about the number discrepancy and wanted to double check. Oh yes, you’re right, the referenced quote does say 62 percent. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A scout around the web has several sources including the BBC saying it gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem.
If no-one objects I am going to go with that for the article? Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that’s good. Thank you so much! I was confused because I was hearing / reading other sources give different numbers than the 62 percent. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Wait. What is the percentage for the international enclave? The Jewish and Arab sections are not supposed to add up to 100%Mistamystery (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the numbers Selfstudier found make the most sense. I think the 43%+56%=99% didn't add up to 100% because of the rounding! They dropped the decimals. I wanted to see what the original source in the lead says (the 62%) because I believe the opinion author might have made an error. My guess, is because the Jewish population already owned 6-8% of the land through purchases, I suspect the author added 6% + 56% = 62%, and mistakenly thought the plan would give an addition 56% to the Jewish population instead of understanding that the total amount of land for Jews would be 56%. I will update the lead with the BBC source. Thanks! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I am still looking for a more concrete explanation, idk whether the Jerusalem area (186km^2 or 0.5%?) is just excluded from the BBC calculation. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Does anyone have eyes on the size of the corpus separatum? Mistamystery (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure, but my understanding was that Jerusalem was to be a shared international city for 10 years, and then after 10 years they would decide. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

@דוב: this sentence your removed is sourced in the article "who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time", revert yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the Zionists representatives heavily invested and did their best to persuade the UN member states to vote in favor of the plan. It's not that they accepted because that was what was proposed. They wanted it! It was a great deal for the Zionist movement and a big improvement on the previous deal proposed in the Peel 1937 Commission proposal. It's well known and recorded the festivities and happiness of the Jewish population when they heard the news!
I will note that the 1937 Peel deal too was accepted by the Zionist leadership in the pretext of further negotiations! And rejected by the Arabs. (Note, there was far more sever opposition to the 1937 plan, yet the plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency, the international body representing the World Zionist Organization, and the leadership of the Mapai (Labor) Party, the dominant Jewish force on the ground).
Please note the historical context and backing up. Due to how contentious the topic is, you must note that there are multiple scholars who seek to harm the Zionist movement and its legitimacy, therefore one must be extra careful. I'm not saying you're at fault. It's an easy mistake especially if you're not very familiar with the history.
I Included above several sources from different perspectives as well as neutral ones.
Good editing ahead! Homerethegreat (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of sources supporting this or something like this; Baruch Kimmerling - Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."

Imperial Israel : the history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Palumbo, Michael 1990 https://archive.org/details/imperialisraelhi0000palu/page/18/mode/2up Bloomsbury p.19 "The Zionists accepted this scheme since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country."

The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations Persistent Analytics and Practices Sean F. McMahonRoutledge 2010 "Ben-Gurion was not alone in his tactical acceptance of partition.

Flapan " acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country 'and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction—a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious."

I haven't looked that hard I daresay there are more, the point is that it is not NPOV to baldly say that the Jews accepted without context.

Undue. Menachem Begin doesn't represent the whole Zionist movement. Not what Morris says ("The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal"). A biased source like Flapan might belong in article's body, provided it's attributed, but definitely not in lead. Dovidroth (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
None of the four sources I just put up mention Menachem Begin. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The main point of my comment still stands. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Morris is a single source. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
It would help to have sources with quotes directly from Zionist leaders stating their intentions, instead of a bunch of commentators merely stating that “Zionists viewed…” or “Zionists invested all their efforts…” Mistamystery (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you mean a bunch of independent reliable secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t doubt your confidence in the sources being independent and reliable and secondary, but actual quotes or direct citations (given some very unclear generalizing by said sources) would be better. Mistamystery (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
When that comes up, the complaint is that said Zionist quotes do not represent all Jews so historians generalizing what they have researched is better. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Quality is more important than quantity. I can look for more sources if you want. Dovidroth (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories: