Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:04, 14 July 2012

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: 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. 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 page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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. Palestine High‑importance This 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 High This 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. Israel Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. International relations: United Nations / Law This 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. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. 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 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 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.

Final section of the article is incorrect

In particular, the final sentence of the article is simply outrageous:

"In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all."

Even if one ignores the fact that the ICJ only has a mandate to issue non-binding opinions, and the fact that the Partition Plan itself was a General Assembly Resolution and therefore a non-binding recommendation, the very text of the Partition Plan itself indicates that it is, in its entirety, a recommendation, a proposal that could only become binding if it were adopted by BOTH sides and implemented accordingly.

Due to Arab opposition, the British Mandatory refused to implement it and the Security Council refused to authorize its implementation and sent it back to the General Assembly. The General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities under UN Res. 181, disbanding it and appointing a UN Mediator who came forward with new proposals designed to supersede the recommendations in the original Partition Plan. These too did not come to fruition.

A number of legal scholars, e.g. Judge Lauterpacht and Prof. Julius Stone, have given legal arguments which further demonstrate why the Partition Plan has no legal validity in international law.

Excerpts from these, and a number of statements on the matter from UN bodies, can be found in the link below.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

For instance, A July 30, 1949 working paper of the UN Secretariat entitled "The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition" noted that:

“The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety.”

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.103.101 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the substance (it certainly seems to be a very odd legal interpretation according to which the Arabs reap all the benefits of a proposed agreement without having agreed to it, or having obeyed any of its obligations, such as open trade and preserving the holy places of all religions). However, if various notable people or somewhat reputable academics have claimed that it supposedly does have some binding legal force, then those opinions can be reported in this article (but not presented as uncontested fact). AnonMoos (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. The text says that de Waart said so, not that the case would be so. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

... except in tha the "Arabs reap all the benefits", since the validity of UN resolution implies a legal validity to Israel's existence, which is a Zionist "reap". --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

According to such interpretations, they would reap all benefits originally offered by the 1947 plan (not attain their maximalistic goals or daydreams)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the original legal status of Resolution 181, it is arguable that by the morning of 15 May 1948, it was dead:-

1 The Arabs had rejected it.

2 Despite the phrase ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 , contrary to Resolution 181 the Jewish People's Council purportrd to declare the establisment of the new state less than two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed (PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION: PART I: Future constitution and government of Palestine: TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE: Clause 3.).

3 The Declaration did not restrict the area of the new state to that set out for the Jewish State in PART II of the Resolution.

2 and 3 amounted to a rejection of Resolution 181.

Nevertheless by refering, in the letter to President Truman , to frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, the new state was in some sense still limiting its boundaries. Trahelliven (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This has all been gone through in past discussions. The way that the British withdrew (in a cynical "law of the jungle" manner, without formally handing over sovereignty to anybody, and without effective United Nations control or supervision) meant that in May 1948, UNGA 181 was almost the only existing internationally-adopted document on which to base Israeli statehood, and some outside the region had not entirely given up on implementing UNGA 181, so early Israeli declarations or communications were bound to make references to UNGA 181, and to avoid giving the impression that the Israelis were the ones who were obstructing any remaining possibility of its implementation. However, these considerations became rapidly irrelevant as the military and diplomatic situations drastically changed. It certainly did not mean that Israel unilaterally accepted to be bound by all obligations of UNGA 181 (regardless of what the Arabs did), as one past participant in these talk page discussions relentlessly claimed (thereby leading to many tens of thousands of bytes of acrimonious talk page discussions with no corresponding article improvement)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Simha Flapan myth claims

"Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war."

I have moved this to the talk page for discussion. I'm hoping other people can give their opinion about this statement under the "Jewish reaction" section. I think it violates WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE and also doesn't seem appropriate to be under the Jewish reaction section in the first place. Also it doesn't give any detail about why he calls these things myths, contrary to all the other info we have in the article. Thoughts? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the long discussion above? The text should be added back in, while it is being discussed. It is certainly not a fringe opinion, so what else would you like to add to it? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not see that discussion, thank you for letting me know. But I don't see anything particularly relevant. Nobody explained why it is not fringe or why it belongs in that section. You similarly say it is not fringe but I say it most certainly is. It goes against mainstream historical accounts of the events and that is demonstrated even in this very article. And it certainly does not deserve to be featured in the very short paragraph discussing the Jewish reaction: that is classic WP:UNDUE. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to remove it, then you need to show that it is a fringe opinion.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy. It isn't reasonable to ask somebody to prove that a claim is fringe. Rather, one must prove that an accused claim is not fringe by presenting sources which prove that it is mainstream and deserves a significant feature in the article. How do you expect me to prove that it is fringe? I have at the very least pointed out that based on the many sources we see in this article, the claim contradicts the mainstream view of the events. To me, that seems to make it fringe. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you're advancing the claim that X is fringe, then you have the burden of proof to prove this is so. This should be easy, since you must already have some reasons for saying that X is fringe. Concerning Flapan, you can read the article devoted to her to discover why she isn't fringe. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

99.237.236.218 -- It's OK where it is now in the article (though it would be better in a separate "Historiography" section). It would be highly inappropriate to put it in the lead section, or to present it as uncontested fact, rather than as the opinions of Simha Flapan, but its presence in the article is reasonable as it stands now (though it isn't actually "important", as Ding dong claimed in an edit summary)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"United Nations Regional Groups" analysis

I didn't really notice that this had crept into the article. I don't think they were known by that name in 1947, and they probably only existed in rather incipient embryonic form. I'm removing the "Members (2011)" column from the table immediately as being anachronistic and irrelevant; the rest of the table should be redone to conform with the terminology and facts of 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your first edit but not with your second - it gives readers the context that the general assembly in 1947 was very different to today's. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there actually a source that puts the vote in terms of regional groups? This is anachronistic usage of the term and would be SYNTH without a source specifically using the same terminology. Same goes for the current members. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile -- In 1947, the General Assembly had less than a third of the membership that it does today, and regional organization was informal and embryonic compared to what came later. Also, the number of members in the regional groups in 2011 is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to 1947. Do not re-add that to the table again (since the real question is whether even the cut-down table belongs in the article at all)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG's removal of Official Jewish statements in reaction to the plan

NMMNG's reversion of two areas. Reason: "QUOTEFARM , a primary source of unclear relevance, and restoring factual statement. sources to follow"
1) " unclear relevance" Odd. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision - Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver (News report 34 confirmed by 35)
Unclear relevance how? The article already says "the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details."
I've given an official instance of that acceptance by a "recognized representative of the Jewish community" according to Policy: A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
2) "factual statement" Are readers to believe Weizmann was the only person who made a statement? (completely un-sourced, yet oddly no complaint from you until I made an edit).
3) Official Statements to the UNSC on the Arab States refusal to accept the resolution

Was there no official reaction to the Arab state's refusal?

The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” - Rabbi Silver 19 March 1948 - quoting Mr. Herschel Johnson

Irrelevant how?

BTW A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.3 "Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material."
NMMNG - "sources to follow" You had no sources? talknic (talk)

A. You'd need to summarize Silver's opinion if B. he was actually in a position to make statements for the Jewish community in the Mandate or and C. quoting him extensively wasn't UNDUE.

The "factual statement" wasn't about Wiezmann, it was about the plan not being implemented. It wasn't.

We have already established that you do not understand the policy regarding primary sources and that I am unable to explain it to you, so I won't waste time on that one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- A. Uh? One can't analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source AND use a Primary Source. One can use a Primary Source sans analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating. I see you're not applying your rules to the Chaim Weizmann statement. It requires no source because?

B. If? ... Rabbi Silver replaced Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, but he wasn't a representative?

C. UNDUE? It's in the section on the Jewish Reaction to the Partition Plan. How can it be WP:UNDUE?

"the plan not being implemented. It wasn't" Really? Israel wasn't declared "ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" ? Do you have an RS Secondary Source? talknic (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "We have already established that you do not understand the policy regarding primary sources"

Apart from being an un-necessary personal affront, is it not a fact that this is Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.4 Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. talknic (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Go to google and search for "partition plan" "not implemented" you'll find several hundred sources that say it wasn't implemented. As opposed to the one source you fished for that said it was "partially realized" which is not the same thing as implemented. I'll add a source when I have a bit of time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - A) Care to answer my question on Policy? B) And Rabbi Silver being an official representative ...thx.. much appreciated.

C)" "partially realized" which is not the same thing as implemented" Correct. That's why I didn't write "implemented"

Meanwhile the Israeli Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel says this :"AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY", I guess they got it wrong? Right?

BTW A Google result of several hundred sources or even millions, doesn't necessarily mean any of the results are WP:RS talknic (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a source for the PP not being implemented.

Like I said, you can summarize what Silver said if you want. It's already there, though. You see where it says "The Jewish Agency praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details"? That's how most secondary sources summarize the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - "I added a source for the PP not being implemented." Oh? Against your own rules?

I believe this is yours: "If in a few days there's a consensus to change the text you can do so. In the meanwhile I suggest you read WP:BRD" --- It's a discussion, which says this "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

I believe this is also yours : "DRNC is an essay, not a guideline ..." and;

I see no attempt on your part to answer a reasonable question regarding Policy: or Rabbi Silver being an official representative.

Itzhak Galnoor is contradicted by the May 15th 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, which says (in part) "... ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY"

Israel was declared as established and recognized as established and admitted into the UN after having undertaken to implement UNGA Res 181, before the war was over, before the 1949 Armistice Agreements Itzhak Galnoor misrepresents and which came before Israel claimed any territory.

"Like I said, you can summarize what Silver said if you want" Why are you repeating? I've already pointed to the Policy you you keep misrepresenting.

"It's already there" NMMNG I noticed long ago what is "already there", attributed to a source that says:"The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to United Nations membership specifically referred to Israel’s undertakings to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II)", contradicting Itzhak Galnoor

Rather odd not to have a quote of the Jewish acceptance of UNGA res 181 by an official representative, also rather odd you're not applying your criteria to the alleged Chaim Weizmann statement talknic (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there a point in all that text? I don't have the time or inclination to try and decipher it. Please be more concise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Please Work towards agreement. Argue facts, not personalities. Do not make misrepresentations. Do not ignore questions Thx talknic (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what your questions were. Please state them clearly and concisely. It would help if you finally realized this is not an internet forum where you score virtual points for being "clever". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Q 1) Is this policy or not? Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.4 Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Q 2) If Rabbi Silver replaced Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, is he actually in a position to make statements for the Jewish community in the Mandate for Palestine in March 1948. Or not?

Q 3) How can it be WP:UNDUE to include an official statement or statements by such an official representative of the Jewish People?

Q 4) Does the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel say "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY". Or not?

Q 5) Was it Israel’s undertaking to implement General Assembly resolution 181 (II) in order to be admitted to the UN 11 May 1949 almost a year after being declared and recognized. Or not?

Thx talknic (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Q1) That is indeed policy. What you're trying to do is exactly the kind of misuse the policy warns against. You are trying to lead the reader to believe that Israel bound itself to the Partition Plan. If that was indeed the case, please find a reliable secondary source that says so. Selectively quoting primary sources in a way that someone without "specialist knowledge" (in this case of history and international law) might misunderstand is not allowed.

Q2) See above. Find a secondary source that explains what Silver was saying.
Q3) The QUOTEFARM which you inserted constituted around 1/3 of the section. That is indeed UNDUE.
Q4) It does. So what?
Q5) I don't see how the Saul S Friendman book is relevant. If you're talking about cite #29, I don't see where it said Israel bound itself to 181. Perhaps one needs some "specialist knowledge" to make that interpretation?
To summarize, you have a theory that Israel bound itself to the partition plan. Unfortunatly, you are unable to find scholarship to support that theory so you want to use primary sources to lead a reader without "specialist knowledge" to your conclusion. That is not allowed, as I have explained to you many many times in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree cherry picking primary sources to advance certain POV is WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the primary material helped. The article has to be written up from reliable works of history by historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG Q 1)"You are trying to lead the reader to believe that Israel bound itself to the Partition Plan. " Nice try. You're trying to suppress any official statement on the Jewish Agency accepting the Partition Plan. They were verbatim quotes, allowed by Policy. There is no need for any knowledge on International Law to understand the statements. No doubt why you don't like them.

Q2)"Find a secondary source that explains what Silver was saying" Why? A primary source may be used according to Policy

Q3) You reverted everything. One can only wonder why you'd rather there are no actual official statements on the Jewish Agency's acceptance of the resolution or to the Arab rejection?

Q4)"It does. So what?" Uh? Answer me this: Why include it if UNSC res 181 was irrelevant?

Q5) My error - here corrected // The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details.26// says in May 1949:"The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to United Nations membership specifically referred to Israel’s undertakings to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II)", contradicting Itzhak Galnoor talknic (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "The article has to be written up from reliable works of history by historians" Policy: talknic (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike -- "I agree cherry picking primary sources to advance certain POV is WP:TE" Indeed. However I was attempting to show readers an official Statement of acceptance to the UN. The section is Jewish reaction. Yet there is no official statement to the UN? Very very hard to believe the only thing editors can come up with is one unsourced, un"quoted" alleged remark by Weizmann talknic (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully there are a couple of other editors here now so I don't have to engage with your repetitive tendentious POV pushing. I will bow out of this discussion now. As usual, do not take my silence as agreement to your proposed changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- The Weizmann statement has no source. I have tried to give it one. I can't find anything. So the section on the Jewish reaction is to contain no official acceptance statements by the Jewish Agency, even though one could be be validly provided via Policy. Bizarre!! Compared to the Arab Reaction the article is going to look quite unbalanced talknic (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

BUMP - Can anyone answer why official acceptance of the plan by the Jewish representatives should not be included in this article other than certain editors don't like it? talknic (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical description of Resolution 181(II). Talknic's edit

Talknic A reader who sees the words, voted to adopt might very well think that the Resolution of the UNGA was binding. If the actual words of the resolution are used, that misapprehension should be avoided. To put it differently, it was the resolution that was adopted, not the Plan of Partition. I am reverting Talknic's edit. Trahelliven (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, the resolution itself says that it "Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below".

Not to mention that the source used is an anonymous document by the Division for Palestinian Rights, which I doubt is RS.

Go ahead and revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- You say "A reader who sees the words, voted to adopt might very well think that the Resolution of the UNGA was binding."

A) The wording you like already says "the General Assembly adopted", how was it adopted without a vote & exactly how does it differ in what a reader might think? C) Name one UNGA resolution adopted without a vote. D) UNGA res 181 (II) Voting Summary: Yes: 33, No: 13, Abstentions: 10, Non-Voting: 1, Total voting membership: 57. E) What was it they were voting to adopt if not UNGA res 181?

NMMNG -- "the resolution itself says..." That's in the preamble. The resolution begins at "Requests that"

This is the wording you like. "On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II)"

Perhaps we should tell readers the name of the resolution they adopted to adopt Resolution 181 (II). Yes?

"document by the Division for Palestinian Rights, which I doubt is RS. " WP:RS in context. The vote count. Available in any number of sources.

"Go ahead and revert. " Shall I add that to the list of your numerous un-necessary provocations? Or the list of your attempts to coerce an editor into contravening Policy? talknic (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

1. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13–54, Myth Two pages 55–80

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• Unassessed United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• Unassessed International law articles
• Unknown-importance International law articles
• WikiProject International law articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Selected anniversaries (November 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2010)