Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

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: 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 [[Arab Higher Committee]]. [FN 1: Thomas] [FN 2]

+

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 [[Arab Higher Committee]] even officially refused to cooperate with UNSCOP. [FN 2] [FN 3]

• 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 [cf., e.g., Morris: 1948. p. 45] and Alami [cf., e.g., Levenberg: Politics... p. 157]) unofficially collaborated with UNSCOP.
  
  

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 [[Galilee]], with the town of [[Akko|Acre]], the hill country of [[Samaria]] and [[Judea]], an enclave at [[Jaffa]], and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now [[Ashdod]]) and encompassing what is now the [[Gaza Strip]], with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. [...]

+

The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western [[Galilee]], with the town of [[Akko|Acre]], the hill country of [[Samaria]] and [[Judea]], and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now [[Ashdod]]) and encompassing what is now the [[Gaza Strip]]. [...]

• 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 Wikipedia 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."
    
    

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:

"[UNSCOP], 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)

Background

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

To address any economic problems, the Plan proposed avoiding interfering with Jewish immigration, since any interference would be liable to produce an "economic crisis", most of Palestine's wealth coming from the Jewish community.

+

-

• Why it should be changed: This is completely incorrect.
  • The phrase "economic crisis" does not appear anywhere in the Peel Commission Report.
  • Regarding Jewish immigration, it is rather recommended to limit it to a maximum of 12,000 per year:
    

Peel Commission Report, 1937, p. 306 s. 97: "In view of the foregoing considerations we advise that there should now be a definite limit to the annual volume of Jewish immigration. We recommend that Your Majesty's Government should lay down a 'political high level' of Jewish immigration to cover Jewish immigration of all categories. This high level should be fixed for the next five years at 12,000 per annum, and in no circumstances during that period should more than that number be allowed into the country in any one year."

• • Footnotes following this sentence seem to have been misplaced as well. The Peel Report on pages 389-391 and Morris's "Righteous Victims" on page 139 only discuss the idea of "transfer" and are therefore already cited before this sentence. "Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine 1929–1948" is an entire book; it's unclear what is meant to be substantiated with it.
  • Most importantly, in the report, it is not stated that Palestine's wealth "came from the Jewish community." This also does not at all correspond to the reality, which was quite outrageous: Instead, the report notes
    • that "the Jews contribute more per capita to the revenues of Palestine than the Arabs" (p. 386 s. 23), accounting for 37% in absolute terms (p. 320 s. 8). This is against a backdrop where Palestinian farmers had been "so over-taxed that they find great difficulty in paying the tithe" (Simpson Report, 1930, p. 65) and many had lost their fields to creditors (Peel Report, p. 239), rendering them unable to be taxed further. This excessive taxation occurred because the nascent Jewish industry was unprofitable and therefore required "protection" by the British through tax cuts and export subsidies (Peel Report, p. 209 s. 8). For example, Nesher Cement, highlighted as a "notable exception" as regards profitability (ibid.), was able to import raw materials duty-free, negotiated with the British an increase of tariffs on imported cement, because otherwise "the company risked collapse," and thanks to export subsidies, was able to sell its cement in Syria at a lower price than in Palestine, despite transportation costs (Cf. Ben Zeev 2019, p. 44-46). So, there wasn't any "wealth of Palestine," and most definitely no wealth "coming" from the Zionists "to Palestine."
    • (almost comically) that the "Jewish area" possessed "taxable capacity," as the revenue-generating ports, most Arab and all Zionist industries, and the majority of the citrus fruit plantations — the leading export commodity at the time, comprising 84% of total exports (p. 213 s. 18) with about 40-45% Arab ownership — were located there. The underlying and outrageous rationale was that, after nearly 20 years of redistributing "wealth," the British were prepared to implement another massive redistribution with their transfer idea. This plan would decimate the Palestinians' primary economic sector (citrus fruit export) and the bulk of their industry in one fell swoop, making these assets available to the Zionists. As the British faced the loss of the Jewish state, they aimed to create a mechanism that would redistribute this wealth back to the part that would remain under their influence as part of Transjordan. This is the reality which is obliquely stated as:

p. 386 s. 23: "Partition would mean, on the one hand, that the Arab Area would no longer profit from the taxable capacity of the Jewish Area. On the other hand, (1) the Jews would acquire a new right of sovereignty in the Jewish Area: (2) that Area, as we have defined it, would be larger than the existing area of Jewish land and settlement: (3) the Jews would be free from their present liability for helping to promote the welfare of Arabs outside that Area [which, of course, had never happened; as stated, the British had plunged the Palestinians in economic misery]. It seems to us, therefore, not unreasonable to suggest that the Jewish State should pay a subvention ot the Arab State when Partition comes into effect."

DaWalda (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)