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 DaWalda (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 12 June 2024 (→Edit request: Proposed partition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:31, 12 June 2024 by DaWalda (talk | contribs) (→Edit request: Proposed partition)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
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 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).
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.
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

Edit request: Ad hoc Committee, last section

  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
−Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition. +The chairman ] excluded the Arab states from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition. Initially, only this majority proposal was to be drafted, but an unnamed US politician maneuvered to also draft the minority proposal, thereby excluding the Arab states from the majority proposal's drafting. Instead, all Arab states were placed in Subcommittee 2 to draft the minority recommendation. Evatt also rejected a motion from Subcommittee 2 to balance this subcommittees' composition. He was later criticized for thereby preventing a compromise and a fairer partition proposal by creating these "unbalanced" subcommittees.
  • Why it should be changed:
    This was in fact one of the major irregularities in the drafting of the partition resolution. The matter is referenced in the UN Yearbook 1947/1948. Cohen reports on it, cited by Thomas, who is cited by the Wikitext. Each source presents it slightly differently from the previous one, so the Wikitext is not accurate in the end. I mark the crucial point with a "".
    • UN, Department of Public Information: Yearbook of the United Nations. 1947–48. p. 240: "On a preliminary review of the task assigned to it - the drafting of a detailed plan for the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the establishment of Palestine as an independent unitary state - the Sub-Committee felt that it was somewhat unfortunate that both Sub-Committee 1 and Sub-Committee 2 were so constituted as to include in each of them representatives of only one school of thought, respectively, and that there was insufficient representation of neutral countries. Accordingly, it was proposed that the Chairman of the ad hoc Committee should be requested to reconstitute Sub-Committee 2 (irrespective of what might be done with regard to Sub-Committee 1) by replacing two of the Arab States in the Sub-Committee (which were prepared to withdraw) by neutrals or countries which had not definitely committed themselves to any particular solution of the Palestine question. The Chairman of the ad hoc Committee, being approached in this connection, explained to the Sub-Committee that he could not see his way to accepting this recommendation. In the circumstances, the representative of Colombia resigned from the Sub-Committee on October 28, and Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) was elected as Chairman in his stead, at the same time retaining his position as Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee."
    • Michael J. Cohen (2016): Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948. Princeton Legacy Library. p. 284: "On October 22, 1947, the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, chaired by Dr. Herbert E. Evatt of Australia, set up two subcommittees, to study the majority and minority reports and to bring forward detailed proposals to the full assembly. Subcommittee One, with nine members, all supporters of partition, was deputed to work on the majority report; Subcommittee Two, composed of six Arab delegates and three supporters of the minority plan, was to work out the details of the unitary state scheme. Subcommittee Two was not really taken seriously, and the unitary state scheme was never considered at any length by the assembly. Evatt found his freedom of choice severely limited by the right of delegates to opt out of subcommittees , but nevertheless he was criticized severely for composing them exclusively of delegates who already supported the schemes they were called upon to consider. The mutual exclusivity of the two reports was underlined by the fact that the Jewish Agency exploited to the full the opportunity afforded it to give evidence to Subcommittee One, while the HAC, which boycotted the first committee, was continually consulted by Subcommittee Two."
    • Thomas (see text): "The Arabs had boycotted the June 1947 UNSCOP inquiry but wished to participate in the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine's subcommittees of October 1947. They were excluded from Subcommittee One, responsible for studying and modifying the boundaries and other specifics of partition. The UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine placed only pro-partition, pro-Jewish countries (including the United States and U.S.S.R.) on this subcommittee. The chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, though limited in his freedom of choice concerning the assignment of delegates to various committees , 'was criticized severely for composing them exclusively of delegates who already supported the schemes that were called upon to consider.' The Arabs were included only in Subcommittee Two, dealing with the minority report (unitary Arab plan), which was not taken seriously. Cohen, Palestine, 284."
  1. Baylis Thomas, How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lexington Books 1999 p.57 n.6.
  2. Cf. Daniel Mandel (2004): H. V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel. The Undercover Zionist. Frank Cass. p. 128.
  3. UN, Department of Public Information: Yearbook of the United Nations. 1947–48. p. 240.
  4. E.g. Nabil Elaraby (1968): Some Legal Implications of the 1947 Partition Resolution and the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Law and Contemporary Problems 33 (1). p. 101: „It seems anomalous that the procedure adopted for the consideration of the report was delegated to two subcommittees of the Ad Hoc Committee, one composed of pro-partition delegates and the other of Arab delegates plus Colombia and Pakistan, which were sympathetic to the Arab cause. It was obvious that those two sub-committees were so unbalanced as to be unable to achieve anything constructive. As was later evident, the task of reconciling their conflicting recommendations was impossible. In such circumstances, it was not surprising that no serious attention was given to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.“
  5. E.g. John B. Judis (2014): Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Section 13: "Months later, Hagglof told Lionel Gelber from the Jewish Agency that a majority of nations felt that the United States and the chairman of the ad hoc committee, the Australian Herbert Evatt, had manipulated the issue so that the countries were forced to choose between 'partition and some pro-Arab scheme.' They would have preferred an 'attempt at conciliation,' but that was not among the choices they were given."
  6. Similarly, Victor Kattan (2009): From Coexistence to Conquest. International Law and the Origins of the Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1891–1949. Pluto Press. p. 149: "In this regard, two of the Arab states let it be known that they were anxious to step down from Subcommittee 2 so that it might be reconstituted on a fairer basis with countries both for and against partition working together. But the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee rejected the proposal. In the words of Khan: 'It was either partition or nothing.' There was no middle way."

DaWalda (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), First Section

  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
−The Arab states, convinced statehood had been subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be brought before an International Court, and refused to collaborate with UNSCOP, which had extended an invitation for liaison also to the ]. +The Arab states, convinced statehood had been subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be brought before an International Court. The ] even officially refused to cooperate with UNSCOP.
  • Why it should be changed: The information in Thomas is wrong. I have actually found even more books where a boycott by 'the Arabs' is mentioned. However, the matter is thoroughly discussed by Levenberg: It was only some members of the Arab Higher Committee who wanted to boycott UNSCOP. The other Arab states were against it, did of course work together with UNSCOP, and even within the AHC, several individuals (e.g., Khalidi and Alami ) unofficially collaborated with UNSCOP.

  1. Cite error: The named reference Baylis Thomas p.47 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Mandel, p.88.
  3. Haim Levenberg: Military Preparations of the Arab Community in Palestine, 1945-1948. Frank Cass 1993. p. 108-116.

DaWalda (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Proposed partition

  • What I think should be changed and added (format using {{textdiff}}):
−The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western ], with the town of ], the hill country of ] and ], an enclave at ], and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now ]) and encompassing what is now the ], with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. +The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western ], with the town of ], the hill country of ] and ], and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now ]) and encompassing what is now the ].
  • Why it should be changed: This is not accurate. The Jaffa section was only added later, following the comments of later members of Sub-committee 2. The same is true for the desert section, which was added at the request of the USA. This is already stated in the Misplaced Pages article further below. UNSCOP instead proposed:
    • About Jaffa: "Jaffa, which has an Arab population of about 70,000, is entirely Arab except for two Jewish quarters. It is contiguous with Tel Aviv and would either have to be treated as an enclave or else be included in the Jewish State. On balance, and having in mind the difficulties which an enclave involves, not least from the economic point at view, it was thought better to suggest that Jaffa be included in the Jewish State, on the assumption that it would have a large measure of local autonomy and that the port would be under the administration of the Economic Union."
    • About the southern coastal plain and the Negev: "The proposed Arab State will include Western Galilee, the hill country of Samaria and Judea with the exclusion of the City of Jerusalem, and the coastal plain from Isdud to the Egyptian frontier. The proposed Jewish State will include Eastern Galilee, the Esdraelon plain, most of the coastal plain, and the whole of the Beersheba subdistrict, which includes the Negeb."

  1. Cf. e.g. Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 (10 November 1947). "Tenth meeting, held at Lake Success, New York, on Friday, 10 October 1947". p. 59. Retrieved 10 June 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link): "With regard to the population of the future States as a whole, the Pakistan representative had said that there would be as many Arabs as Jews in the proposed Jewish State. The delegation of Guatemala was ready to reconsider the position of Jaffa and to support any proposal which would give the Arab State possession of that city, to which it had an undeniable right. In that case, there would not be more than 337,000 Arabs in the Jewish State, according to the estimates ."

DaWalda (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you're right, thanks for noticing the error. I was about to make the change but then I wondered whether the statistics in the last paragraphs of the Proposed partition section refer to the initial plan or to the amended one (the part starting from The Plan would have had the following demographics (data based on 1945) and ending with 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.) Alaexis¿question? 20:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
You are right. The population statistics are from the UNSCOP report, the land statistics refer to the final partition (55,5% Jewish state, 43,8% Arab State, 0,7% Jerusalem. See Abu-Sitta 2010, p. 7). I've done a very rough measurement: the area along the border with Egypt (the largest change) is just ~7-8% of Palestine. According to the UNSCOP plan, therefore, roughly 62-63% would have been allocated to the Jewish state. But this would need a source. I can't find any calculations on how the areas of the Jewish and Arab states compared to each other before the adjustments. DaWalda (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
God, I'm such an airhead. On the page itself, there are two quotes that mention 62%: Morris: 1948, p. 47; Ben-Dror: Arab Struggle, p. 259 f. Tom Segev: 1949. The First Israelis. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-8050-5896-6. p. 21 has also the Arab figure:
", which had prepared the Partition Resolution of 1947, had allotted 62 percent of the territory of Palestine to the Jewish state and 38 percent to the Arab one. The November 29 Resolution itself altered this ratio in favor of the Arabs, giving them 45 percent as opposed to 55 percent to the Jews. Following the conclusion of hte armistice agreements, Israel retained nearly 80 percent of the territory and the Arabs about 20 percent." DaWalda (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
In that case we need to fix the article in a few places
  1. Proposed partition - your proposed changes (removing Jaffa) and also probably it would make sense to rename it to "Initial partition plan" to make it clear that it was *proposed* but the UN voted on a different plan
  2. Proposed partition - the table and the percentages should be removed and replaced by the numbers that you've found (62% and 38%).
  3. Boundary changes - the tables and percentages describing the finalised partition plan should be moved here. Again, I'd suggest renaming it to something like "Final partition plan"
WDYT? Alaexis¿question? 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I would also move
State Department advice critical of the controversial UNSCOP recommendation to give the overwhelmingly Arab town of Jaffa, and the Negev, to the Jews was overturned by an urgent and secret late meeting organized for Chaim Weizman with Truman, which immediately countermanded the recommendation.
to "Boundary changes". The background is this:
The dominant USA had already planned to reallocate Jaffa and the Negev to the Arab state to gain favor with Arab states and secure their support for the partition plan. However, when the Zionists learned of these plans, President Truman's advisor David Niles arranged a meeting with Chaim Weizmann, who persuaded the President with the vision of a canal running through Jewish territory from the Gulf of Aqaba to Tel Aviv. Following Truman’s direct orders, the Americans abandoned their earlier tactic and only introduced a modification proposal (which was accepted) to slightly enlarge the Palestinian area with the city of Beersheba and a section on the border with Egypt. DaWalda (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. Cf. Chaim Weizmann: Trial and Error. Schocken Books, 1966. p. 457–459.
  2. Abba Eban: An Autobiography. Random House, 1977. p. 94.
  3. T. G. Fraser: The USA and the Middle East Since World War 2. Palgrave Macmillan, 1989. p. 30 f.
  4. Robert J. Donovan: Conflict and Crisis. The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945–1948. W. W. Norton & Company, 1977. p. 327 f.
  5. John W. Mulhall: America and the Founding of Israel. An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role. Deshon Press, 1995. p. 140–142.
  6. Allis Radosh / Ronald Radosh: A Safe Haven. Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel. Harper Collins Publishers, 2009. p. 261–265.
  7. John B. Judis: Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014. Epub edition, section 13: "The most controversial of these amendments was giving most of the Negev to the Arabs. With the Negev included, an Arab state would be larger than the Jewish state, and it would have a direct link to the sea and a contiguous border with Egypt and Jordan. Such a plan might have at least brought the Arab League into negotiations. And it would have been a far fairer distribution of Palestine's assets. Truman approved the State Department's amendments, which fit his own sense of fairness. But the Jewish Agency was determined to defeat the proposal."
  8. Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9.
Categories: