Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Mandatory Palestine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Amoruso, please justify your changes.--Doron 16:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an old issue here. Several users are attempting to say that the Mandate only included western Palestine. That is a mistake. In fact, the original map was accurate and was changed in several articles. The current version is more accurate. Amoruso 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to your changes to the map caption. Palestine was given to Great Britain by the 1922 Leagure of Nations resolution. She didn't "alter" anything.--Doron 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it did and it is sourced. It altered the mandate it was supposed to receive by cutting Palestine into half. Amoruso 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Which article of the Mandate did the British alter?--Doron 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It altered the map designated for the mandate, read article. Amoruso 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now a few millennia are summed up in the (rather unreadable) intro, isn't this going a bit too far? How about restoring the old intro that only introduced the British period, how it began and how it ended (i.e., only mention the Ottoman period, mandate establishment and termination) and leave the long story to the History section?--Doron 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been a bit of dispute here. There's good reason for this, as much that is easily available is very confusing or impossible. I thought I might throw my 2 cents in about some things that could be added to help clarify things. First, good work, Ian. This latest version increases the accuracy and has a lot of good info. Second, I believe Amoruso's version is completely in good faith, but it contains some "well known" but untrue, indeed impossible misconceptions, along with some good points that should be here. As is here now, and as I just reclarified in the San Remo conference article, there is no question that in April or August 1920 the borders of Palestine and the other mandates were not yet really drawn. Look at the resolution and treaty of Sevres. I'll speak mainly of Jordan and Palestine. Until Samuel's arrival in June 1920 everything, Jordan and Palestine was part of OETA (Occupied Enemy Territory) (mainly) South. But Samuel was explicitly and repeatedly instructed by his superiors that his authority and the mandate only extended to the Jordan river (see Wasserstein, Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do they fight, ca. p. 100 an excellent, too short but very clear reference on this period) "in order to not prejudice the decision of the powers" ( quoted (from memory) from Leonard Stein's Balfour Declaration, footnote on next to last page, another excellent reference.).

So the original (provisional) eastern border of Palestine was the Jordan river. And all the sequel did in essence was to confirm this in a circuitous way. After Abdullah arrived in Jordan, as related in Kirkbride's memoirs that Amoruso referred to, he asked Kirkbride if he happened to know just who owned Jordan. Kirkbride candidly replied that nobody really knew. (You can see the lightbulb going on over Abdullah's head. :-) ) Something important that is missing is the March 1921 Cairo Conference (1921), see British Mandate of Iraq which occurred before Churchill visited Jerusalem ( A convenient reference is Fromkin's Peace to End all Peace.] . Britain did indeed "alter" the mandate there. The decision was made to ADD article 25 to the December 1920 (IIRC) draft of the mandate Article 25 allowed differing treatment of Jordan and Palestine under the terms of the mandate and having the JNH only in the latter. The decision was to add Jordan to the Mandate terrritory and "give" it provisionally to Abdullah. It was already "occupied by force by Abdullah and it had nothing to do with the designated mandate" as Amoruso said. .But this did not partition the mandate - which was impossible - Jordan was already controlled by Abdullah more or less, and legally Jordan was still OETA, not being under the mandate's civil administration, not part of the mandate's territory in any sense yet.

To be repetitive, the March 1921 Cairo/Jerusalem events ADDED Jordan to the British Mandate. under a then-modified Mandate document. There was no time whatsoever that Jordan was ever ruled under the full British Mandate document including the Jewish National Home provisions and the Balfour Declaration. There was no partition, just addition of a new territory under different arrangements, at a different time from the original territory. The rest of the history is relatively unproblematic.

A couple more amusing sidelights. What did the Zionists think of this? As Wasserstein relates, the Zionist Executive had no problem with this and ratified these arrangements in 1922. In particular "Jabotinsky, had as a member of the Zionist Executive, endorsed the arrangements in 1922 that explicitly prohibited Jewish settlement in Transjordan." But "most Revisionists conveniently forgot that." :-) For later, as his article here relates, "His new party demanded that the Zionist movement recognize as its objective the establishment of a Jewish state along both banks of the Jordan River." Basically he said "we wuz robbed" but forgot to mention he was one of the "robbers." This is pretty much the origin of the confusion and distortion that led to some recent disputes. Another amusing sidelight is the National Government of Moab established in Transjordan under Samuel's but not the Mandate's authority before the Cairo Conference - the references I put there, Sachar, Sykes are also worth looking at. Were another proof needed, it shows that Jordan was not considered part of the mandate then.

Anyways, hope this farrago helps someone. John Z 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a great help John, thank you. I shall be adding these references to my collection. --Ian Pitchford 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Very insightful, John Z, thanks, I'll look all this up.--Doron 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help people less lazy than me - which would be practically anyone though! I promised Jay I'd write something about this a long time ago but never did. It makes me feel less crazy staying up so late here. John Z 12:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John Z. Please try to integrate this with the material I presented other than blind reverting like Doron and Ian Pitchford engage at. Cheers, Amoruso 13:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you all stop edit warring already and discuss things on the talk page! *sigh*

Now the map that does not distinguish between Palestine proper and Transjordan is misleading. Transjordan was never administrated as part of Palestine and almost all official references to Palestine refer to the territory west of the Jordan River. A map that fails to make this distinction creates the false impression that Transjordan was actually part of Palestine, whereas in fact it was a separate entity. The inclusion of Transjordan is really only relevant to the short period when the Mandate was being established.--Doron 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the map misleading? As you acknowledge, during the period when the Mandate was being established, this territory was one contiguous mandate, and 'Transjordan' was a part of it. It was later excluded, and administered separately, and the article as well as the map's caption explain this. Isarig 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was later excluded. By 'later' I mean during the first month of the Mandate. The map does not show Transjordan at all. At the very least, a map of the Mandate should reflect the political status during almost the entire period of the Mandate, and not just the original territory in the moment it was established. The map in Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg was in the article for a long time and was replaced unilaterally and without consensus to a map that omits the distinction between Palestine and Transjordan.--Doron 09:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By the time the Mandate became a legal entity in 1923, the League of Nations had already approved the British proposal to administer Transjordan according to a different set of rules (essentially, all the clauses dealing with a Jewish homeland were excluded). So for most practical purposes Palestine and Transjordan were separate entities right from the first moment. Removing them from the map is historical engineering. It is worth noting that the French Mandates of Lebanon and Syria were also assigned to France in a single document, which is something that advocates of Greater Syria like to repeat ad nauseam. They are also engaging in wishful thinking. In summary, we can describe the facts on the ground for the entire legal life of the Mandate, or we can pretend that the only thing that matters is the position of some of the parties for a short time when the Mandate was still on the drawing board. The choice is pretty clear. --Zero^talk 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what's actually misleading is both of the responses above, which conflate the date when the mandate's final borders were demarcated , with the date when it actually became a legal entity. The mandate did not become a legal entity in 1923 -it became one in 1920. The mandate was granted and approved by the LoN in San Remo that year. The first High Commissioner began exercising his power under the legal force of the mandate that year. The only legal way for the British to have separated Transjordan was under the legally binding terms of the mandate (specifically, article 25), which already existed. what Syria may politically claim WRT to Lebanon is a red herring here - as irrelevant as political claims that Transjordan is actually part of Palestine. that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is what area was granted to Britain as a mandatory power for Palestine - and that area included what later became known as "Transjordan". Isarig 14:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the Mandate become a legal entity under the Treaty of Sevres or the Treaty of Lausanne? That would be the difference between 1920 and 1923. Kaisershatner 14:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither. It became a legal entity under the Sanremo conference, and subsequently, the British began exercising their mandate, through the power of a High Commissioner, in 1920. Isarig 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. (According to the Sanremo Conference article: "The conference's decisions were embodied in the stillborn Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." So, 1920. Anyway, does anyone want two maps? The original borders and the division that followed a month later? Seems to me that it would resolve any POV issues, just stating the facts without prejudice, in chronological order. Kaisershatner 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want 2 maps, and in fact, I'm ok with the original map - I just object to the false, misleading and POV-pushing caption that asserts the Mandate became a legal entity in 1923, post, or contemporaneously with the excision of transjordan from it. Isarig 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You two both need to assume good faith! (Zero: "restore map with better information but without the tendentious caption," and Isarig "false, misleading and POV-pushing caption.") If we can all agree on the "original map" (which one is that?) then we can work on a caption that is agreeable. But without the acrimony, maybe? Kaisershatner 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Newer map is better and in fact in better quality as far as I can see. It has a nice fixed caption and the correct explanation backed by the best source possible, the Atlas provided by the user posting it. The only reason some people want the original map is to create the false impression, perhaps they actually believe it (WP:AGF although I'm familar with some of the users having a difficult history in this sense), that supposedly the Mandate was only for Western Palestine/Eretz Israel. Well it wasn't - the Mandate for a Jewish National Home was for all Palestine, and this includes both banks of the Jordan river, and it should be reflected in the map. I'm willing to accept the compromise of two maps with ease User:Kaisershatner , it seems like a good idea, thanks for that. Amoruso 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Isarig and Amoruso. One of the points I am trying to make is that (a) San Remo gave no borders because the Powers disagreed (b) the original (provisional) borders Britain gave to the civil administration of the Mandate, only a short time later, the FIRST EVER borders of Palestine, was cisJordanian Palestine, the Jordan river was the boundary, the (proposed) Mandate excluded Transjordan from the very beginning. (This is according to Wasserstein, Stein ( who was Political Secretary of the Zionist organization in the 30s,btw) and the Documents on British Foreign Policy series, the primary source.) and (c) There is no question the mandate document was changed - in March 1921 at Cairo, when Article 25 was added. One thing that I don't understand is what Doron and Kaisershatner mention - What does "Yes, it was later excluded. By 'later' I mean during the first month of the Mandate. " or "The original borders and the division that followed a month later?" mean? What are the precise dates? Maybe I'm being stupid, but I just don't see what you guys are talking about.John Z 10:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1920 it was decided that there was going to be a Palestine Mandate. It was a decision about what was going to happen and did not immediately create the mandate entity with GB in charge of it. If the US decided that Puerto Rico was going to become independent, it would not be suddenly independent from that moment. Independence would only come at a declared moment after all the legal formalities had been completed, perhaps years later. The Palestine administration answered only to the British crown until 1923, as you can see from where they submitted all their reports. It did not answer to the League of Nations as a mandatory authority as there was no legal basis for that yet. Until the mandate document was approved by the League of Nations in 1922, the details of the mandate were still being negotiated, not only between GB and the League of Nations but between GB and the other powers (esp. France). One of the things decided during that negotiating period was the disposition of Transjordan, with the complete approval of the League of Nations. As illustrations that I'm not making this up, see this 1921 report. Note (1) "on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a Civil Administration was established in Palestine" (i.e. not by authority of the League of Nations); (2) "the many improvements which the country needs ... have had to be postponed until the Mandate is promulgated" (i.e. there was no official mandate yet). Next see the Palestine Order in Council of August 1922 which replaced the previous British administration by a mandate administration with a completely different legal basis. Then look at this 1922 report which states "the principal event of the year 1922 has been the approval by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24th, 1922, of the British Mandate for the administration of the territory" (i.e. it was not official before that). Finally, see the 1923 report of the mandate government which is clearly labeled the "first annual report to the council of the League of Nations". Look, this whole question would be just a minor historical footnote except that some people want to make an argument that the Jews were cheated out of Transjordan (and the Golan, and the Litani River, etc etc). (Amoruso proved this point just now as I was typing by repeating the absolute falsehood that "all" of the mandate was intended for the Jews.) It's a worn-out political barrow that we should not be pushing. --Zero^talk 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add: for an even better proof that the statement "it became a legal entity under the San Remo conference, and subsequently, the British began exercising their mandate, through the power of a High Commissioner, in 1920" is incorrect, I refer you to the text of the Sanremo resolution. To quote "The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust ... the administration of Palestine ... to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers." You see, at that point of time it was not even official that the Mandatory was going to be Great Britain. (Actually there was a strong push to get the USA to take the job, but they didn't want it.) The same lack of decision over who the Mandatory would be appears in the Sevres treaty later the same year. So, no, Great Britain did not become the Mandatory for Palestine on account of either of these 1920 decisions. That did not happen until the League of Nations decided it in 1922. --Zero^talk 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But here I have to admit I'm confused, since practically everyone says that the San Remo conference chose Britain as the Mandatory for Palestine. Until an hour ago, that's what I thought too. But, if so, why does it appear to contradict the actual wording of the resolution? It also contradicts the text of the Sevres treaty which repeats the San Remo wording and adds "The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers." Maybe the choice of Britain was made informally? --Zero^talk 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who put this link in a couple years ago (and wrote most of the San Remo article here). It says in the linked resolution - in French, that GB was chosen: "(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances allies sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grand Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine."

But if you look at what I wrote in "Recent Changes" above, (confirming Zero's statements above) I think things in general should be cleared up. The point is that the initial 1920 territory of the mandate was Palestine proper without Transjordan. Transjordan was not separated later, it was ADDED later at the Cairo Conference in 1921. It really wasn't clear what would be done with that area until then, maybe France would get some of it; it was still in OETA. The mandate document (draft) was simultaneously changed -article 25 was added - to allow GB to not apply the JNH provisions there. And then the League and Britain just regularized these arrangements unchanged once they got around to it.

No matter what starting date one takes for the mandate, there was never any partition. One can get an idea of why this confusion started, and who did it, from my discussion above. We need not care about "the position of some of the parties for a short time when the Mandate was still on the drawing board" because during this short time, these parties did not actually have this position. :-)

If you look at maps like in Martin Gilbert's map book, you can see that there is something in the oft heard story that doesn't make sense. Earlier, in Paris or Versailles at the end of the war, the Zionists tried to get a fatter Palestine as the mandate territory, going up to the railroad iirc, sort of doubling the size of Palestine. But they were unsuccessful. Then we are to believe that the Powers insisted on giving them much more P + TJ, and then took away TJ Does this make sense?John Z 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

John Z, thanks for showing that I am only going blind and not going insane :-). I did indeed miss the French text. I wonder if there are parts missing from that source, or if it is several things cobbled together, as the mixture of languages looks pretty odd. I have a lead on a better source. Anyway, I found something that can explain the wording inconsistency I found: "The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers. The mandatory is not mentioned in Treaty, but by an independent decision of Supreme Council was declared to be Great Britain..." (Telegram from Curzon at San Remo to Allenby, quoted in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers, p92.) So the names of the Mandatories were left out of the main text on purpose, for some reason. As for your "make sense?" question, the point is that nobody ever promised all of Palestine, or even all of "Western" Palestine, to the Zioinists. Not Britain, not the Paris Conference, not the League of Nations, nobody. So the "we wuz cheated" claim is based on a historical fallacy. --Zero^talk 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

“In the Turkish Peace Treaty, drawn up by the London Conference (February 12-April 10, 1920), finalized by the San Remo Conference (April 18-26, 1920), and signed by the Turkish government at the French town of Sevres on August 10, 1920, the Mandatory for Palestine was tasked with ‘putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ ... . This was an outstanding success for the Zionists. “Though they failed to achieve their territorial goals owing to Britain’s compromise with France over Palestine’s northern frontier, and the effective separation of Transjordan from Palestine that followed … .”

Ref: p.257-258, Empires of the Sand, The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923. Efraim Karsh & Inari Karsh. Harvard University Press. 1999.
-Doright 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is often called a "separation" and there is some sense to that. (I don't completely agree with John Z on this point.) The meaning of "Palestine" was not initially precise. During the negotiation period 1919-1922, it was decided that Transjordan would be included in the Mandate (much more of it than was ever historically regarded as part of "Palestine") and further that Transjordan would be excluded from the Jewish homeland provisions. That's a separation of sorts. The first 8 words you emphasise just mean that the Zionists got less than they wanted; nobody disputes that either. The problems come when people put these facts together with the false claim that all of the mandate territory had been promised to the Zionists. That never happened. Incidentally, Britain's "compromise" with France over the northern frontier consisted of Britain getting more than previously agreed (see Sykes-Picot Agreement). --Zero^talk 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image caption: there was never such an entity as the "Mandate for a Jewish National Home". That name is pure invention. Gilbert does not use it, either. The Jewish national home was to be in Palestine, not all of Palestine. The word in was deliberately chosen to avoid specifying how much of Palestine or which part of Palestine was intended; see Ingrams, Palestine Papers, for example. Note that nobody here is proposing that the image caption expresses the Arab position that the mandate was designed to deprive the Arab inhabitants of their right to self-determination in violation of the League of Nations Charter. This "debate" is between the Revisionist Zionist position and the neutral position. Those people trying to push their political positions into the figure should desist. --Zero^talk 10:19, 4 May 2007

Really? Contrary to your false claim, Gilbert captions it as "The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish National home."
Also, "according to your logic there was "never such an entity as" The British Mandate for Palestine the[]. It is just The Mandate for Palestine. The title of this article should be changed to reflect this simple fact.

-Doright 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article was chosen to conform with all the other mandate articles, but anyway my source trumps yours:

Thumb — Palestine Mandate official published title

--Zero^talk 09:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, I'm not really sure how we disagree. (I agree with you about everything but this!) I agree that there was a separation of sorts, but it was simultaneous with the 1921 Cairo Conference addition of Transjordan to the projected Mandate, so calling it a separation, rather than an addition is very misleading. In April, 1920 at San Remo, the powers disagreed acrimomiously about what the precise borders of Palestine would be, so they left the matter undecided. See Stein, among other sources. Before and after Samuel's arrival in June 1920, the British government made it very clear that he would not have authority beyond the river Jordan. Wasserstein and Stein quote from the appropriate documents in the Documents on British Foreign Policy series to this effect. The sequence was as follows 1) Everything is OETA 2) San Remo April 1920 decides that there will be a British Mandate of Palestine, with mysterious borders 3) June 1920 Samuel arrives and sets up the civil administration of the mandate, under British authority, with the legal details not completely ironed out. But the British government makes very clear that the border of "Palestine" and his authority at that moment is the Jordan river. You might call this a separation of Palestine proper from the rest of OETA! A little later, the British even set up silly things like the National Government of Moab in TransJordan (cf Sykes,Sachar) 4) Abdullah gets to Jordan in Autumn 1920 5) The Cairo Conference, Spring 1921, basically run by Churchill, trying to reconcile the various (implicit, vague) promises to everyone, decides that they should add a new article to the mandate document draft, that would allow the JNH provisions to not apply beyond the Jordan and simultaneously decides to provisionally add this territory beyond the Jordan to the projected Mandate territory, with Abdullah as the local satrap, largely because the British taxpayer was complaining about the expense. This is in Fromkin 6) Once this happens, there is no real change of who is running things, or what laws apply, people just accept what happened at Cairo (and Jerusalem a week later) , dot all the legal i's and cross the t's. In particular, Jabotinsky & the Zionist Executive says all this is perfectly OK in 1922. (At the time, why should the Zionists care much? The total Jewish population of Transjordan was 2-3 individuals, according to Sykes.) Zero's post above shows how the legal arrangements confirming this developed. 7) Jabotinsky and the Revisionists start their "exercise in historical mythmaking" to quote Wasserstein, basically saying "we wuz robbed" to make propaganda, and "conveniently forget" that Jabotinsky himself was perfectly OK with separating = in reality adding, Jordan under a different, no Jewish National Home, arrangement.

I can do some possible copyright violation and post or email the 3 relevant pages from Wasserstein's excellent, extremely, extremely NPOV book here or on people's user talk pages. This is a book that Wikipedians should plagiarize! I never really felt I understood what happened until I read his account.John Z 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, you aren't the only one going blind or insane. Some of your older comments ( with the blind or insane part) seem to have appeared out of thin air when I was about to post this. And then you and Ian posted more with an edit conflict. I agree with your comments, nobody promised the Zionists Transjordan. Thinking they did get such a promise leads to an incredible but common story. That source, realroadtopeace, was the best I could find two years ago, and was consistent with Stein's book. Oh well, maybe the margarita + 4 beers had something to do with my blind insanity. Contrary to some crazy wikiguideline, I think this procedure should be obligatory before writing on the Arbraeli-Jewishstinian conflict. Cheers to everyone!John Z 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(UTC) I looked at Gilbert's map and don't have much problem with it. He doesn't say that the whole area was ever given to the Zionists and even shows the much smaller area that the Zionists were hoping to get. Since the Jewish National Home is the topic of his map, it is reasonable for him to include information such as Jewish immigration to Transjordan. The topic of our map is different; adding the Zionist view without adding the Arab view as well would violate NPOV in our case. Gilbert's map shows an area "ceded to the French mandate" but fails to show the area that France ceded to the British mandate at the same time -- that's the main complaint I have with Gilbert's map. --Zero^talk 11:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The summary provided by Zero and John Z is consistent with the sources I use, the main one being Gideon Biger's, The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947. --Ian Pitchford 11:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you can do all the WP:OR you want. I quite enjoy it. However, Gilbert captions it as:

"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish National home."

I'm sorry you don't like it. -Doright 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand it. "As the region of a Jewish national home" means "As the region in which a Jewish national home would be established". It doesn't imply that the whole area would be a Jewish national home. Gilbert only had a few square centimeters to write the caption and couldn't be expected to explain the details. Your interprettation is actually offensive to Gilbert, who as a serious historian would not make such an undergraduate error. On the other hand, the detailed and very authoritative sources brought above are being completely ignored by you. You should be looking for sources of similar eminence that support your case (you won't find any). There is simply no place here for your false image and its phoney caption. (It is also poorly drawn as the Jordan River looks like part of the Dead Sea.) --Zero^talk 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, Resorting to personal insults is often a sign of a weak argument.

Do you make the same insult (“undergraduate error “) against the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs that caption the map as “Area allocated for a Jewish National home, San Remo Conference 1920?”[] Or, do you have a different insult for them?

Zero, Your objection is a red herring. I make no interpretation, YOU do. I merely report Gilbert. Did Gilbert tell you that your red herring “interpretation is actually offensive?” Did he publish that somewhere or do you still continue to refuse to comply with WP policy of WP:OR ?

Zero, Regarding your claim that Gilbert did not have enough “centimeters” to meet your needs for "details", I would point out that he did find the centimeters on the map for quoted text from three documents:

(1) a communication from Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurther 3 March 1919 (approx 80 words),
(2) Winston Churchill statements in the Illustrated Sunday Herald 8 Feb 1920 (approx 80 words),
(3) The Balfour Declaration 2 Nov 1917 (approx 70 words):

“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Balfour Declaration 2 Nov 1917”

It seems Gilbert found the “centimeters” to provide plenty of words. I suspect that he is quite good at it. You just don’t seem to like it.

Again, Gilbert's caption is:

"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish National home."

And consistent with Gilbert, the official government website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs caption the same area as

"Area allocated for a Jewish National home, San Remo Conference 1920."

I'm sorry you don't like it. However, there is simply no place here for WP:OR or WP:SOAP.

-Doright 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading Gilbert. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has another motive, which should be obvious. You can read the San Remo resolution for yourself and see that it copies the wording of the Balfour Declaration. Then you can read the history of the Balfour Declaration and see that it was changed from a form that clearly refers to the whole area to a form that says "in Palestine" on purpose. You can read Leonard Stein's monograph on the Balfour Declaration (Stein was a senior person in the Zionist Organization) and see that Weizmann was informed already at the time of the Balfour Declaration that Transjordan was not included. It is not a crime to be uninformed about history, but it is about time you realised that the copious very eminent sources being provided here make a case that your few sources can't match. --Zero^talk 00:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate the danger of unthinkingly using popular pocket sources like Gilbert's atlases as the final word on anything, turn to page 106 of Gilbert's "Routledge Atlas of Jewish History". There you will find Palestine ending at the Jordan River labeled "British Mandate 1920-1948". The boundary line marked by Gilbert runs right down the Jordan River! So your source Martin Gilbert is willing to label as "British Mandate 1920-1948" an area that excludes Transjordan altogether and you want to use a map that includes Transjordan without naming it. The solution is to use better sources and make an effort to get it right. --Zero^talk 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there's a distinction that's been missed, which is that between the scope of the mandate as granted by the League of Nations on the one hand, and the mandate as Great Britain chose to implement it on the other. Keep in mind that Palestine had never been a clearly delineated area - ever; and Transjordania was a new invention, put in place for the benefit of the Hashemite tribe as compensation for ceding Arabia to the Saud family. It may very well be that the original mandate as it was conceived did not see the Jordan as a dividing line; but it's very obvious that Great Britain, in the early 1920s had very good reason for making it so. After all, it wasn't as if the already fragile League of Nations was going to challenge anything Britain decided to do at that point. --Leifern 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, you make an interesting and perhaps very useful observation which may help guide certain editor's thinking as well as discussion of the content of the article. However, my involvement to date has been limited to support WP policy of WP:NOR with respect to the map. -Doright 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zero, The problem is not with my reading of Gilbert’s atlas; it is that you don’t want anyone else to. His atlas is WP:RS. And, after all, we are talking about maps.

When it served your purpose you called Gilbert a “serious historian,” but now, according to you his work is not serious but merely “popular.” His book is an atlas, a book of maps that has seen 7 editions. By the way my 1st edition hardcover copy will not fit in my pocket. So what if it did? Your rhetoric seems to be increasingly desperate. Sir Martin Gilbert is Winston Churchill's official biographer, and a leading historian of the modern world. He is the author of seventy-seven books, among them Churchill: A Life, his twin histories First World War and Second World War, a comprehensive History of Israel, and his three-volume work, A History of the Twentieth Century.

You also reject, The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs published document because they have “another motive, which should be obvious.” So you are saying that The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is lying; and, you know the reason why. Well, what is it? Be specific and show how it serve them to lie about this particular map?

In fact, even the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, hardly a Zionist advocacy group, caption the exact same area on their map in the same way:

"The Palestine Mandate granted to Great Britain at the 1920 San Remo Conference as the region of a Jewish National Home." []

Apparently, according to you, not only am I, “unthinking,” but so is the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs. I do not object to their caption and will be delighted to use it. Please read this.[] Cheers. -Doright 03:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User Zero, I looked at your map on page 106 of the "Routledge Atlas of Jewish History." Your illustration was not of an "unthinking" reader, rather it was of a moron. The map is as of 1948. Your example is a pointless waste of time. The map you want to delete is as of 1920 from the San Remo conference. My estimation of your creditability is approaching zero and I think your time is up-Doright 05:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The bold border line on the map is identified in the legend as "British Mandate 1920-1948"; don't deny what you can see with your own eyes. Is this map legend correct? As for 1920, neither you nor anyone else has produced a map showing the boundaries of the mandate at the time of the San Remo conference. That's because the borders were still being negotiated. The northern border was first provisionally agreed about 8 months after the San Remo conference and not finally agreed until 1923. For people who want to read about these negotiations, the book of Biger is good and another source is: John McTague, Anglo-French Negotiations over the Boundaries of Palestine, 1919-1920, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, 100-112. --Zero^talk 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also looked at Gilbert's "The Arab -Israeli conflict - it's history in Maps" by Gilbert (published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1974) and it is very clear Zero is misleading us. Here is what it sais: on the area of the mandate that is east of the jordan river: "Separated from palestine by Britain in 1921 and given to Emir Abdulla. Named Transjordan this terrotory was once closed to Jewish settlement" Zeq 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(Previous edit thought you were looking at the other atlas.) I didn't write anything contradicting that. I even agreed with the word "separated", see elsewhere on this page. --Zero^talk 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::: You are looking at the wrong map. Look at page 106. The words you quote do not appear on there. Both maps have accuracy problems. The eastern border had not yet been defined at the time of the San Remo conference. In fact the northern border wasn't defined yet either, but was decided late in 1920. Until that time it might have been anywhere from the Sykes-Picot line (just north of Acre) to the Litani River. --Zero^talk 07:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, yes, In know: What other people see in sources is wrong and what you see in the sources is right. Sigh ... Are you callimg me a liar by saying : "The words you quote do not appear" - please apologize at once and stop misleading the debate. At some point you need to intenelize the meaning of NPOV: There are two views one is yours and one is the oppsoing view - your consatnt push for your POV and your nulification of the opposing POV is being noticed. Zeq 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll apologise for thinking you were looking at the other atlas when you apologise for falsely stating my position. I have never, not once, denied that Transjordan was part of the Mandate of Palestine. --Zero^talk 07:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) So, it seems to me that we are in violent agreement on the following points:

The Balfour Declaration stated Britain's policy that the area known as "Palestine" - with no defined borders - would be the region in which a Jewish homeland would be established.
The Sanremo conference established a mandate, administered under Great Britain, for Palestine, that included parts of the Golan Heights, Transjordan, the West Bank, Gaza, and today's Israel within the green line
Great Britain made unilateral adjustments to its mandate, ceding all parts east of the Jordan river to the Hashemite tribe, and the Golan to France's mandate in Syria.
The mandate took effect de facto after World War II and de jure in about 1923. --Leifern 12:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I will answer all four points (on which I don't disagree as violently as you say) but I'll start with the second point. The most extensive study of the origins of the mandate borders has been made by the Israeli geographer Gideon Biger. On page 173 of his book "The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947", we read

On 24 April, in San Remo, it was decided to hand the mandates over Palestine and Mesopotamia to Britain without precisely defining the boundaries of the mandated territories. The officials of the Foreign Office discussed the future of the area east of the Jordan, and concluded with three possible outcomes. One proposal regarded the land as part of the independent Arab kingdom of Hijaz, ruled by Hussein, who had declared himself King of Hijaz. The second proposal regarded the area east of the Jordan as part of the territory over which Britain had just received a ruling mandate, and the third regarded it as part of the the Arab kingdom of Damascus, which was headed by Hussein's son Feisal.

From this we can see that the boundaries were still vague at the San Remo conference, that Britain (actually the Principal Powers in consultation) had the task of determining precise borders, and that the future of Transjordan was at that point of time undecided even to the extent that its inclusion in the mandate was uncertain. Biger then describes an unresolved argument between Herbert Samuel and the Foreign Office about the eastern border and concludes that Samuel "assumed his position on 1 July 1920 without a clear definition of the eastern (and northern) limits of the territory he was supposed to govern" (p174). --Zero^talk 09:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Note also that the San Remo resolution itself says "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers". --Zero^talk 10:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now to point #1. I don't know if you have seen the British sitcom "Yes, Minister", but it is a good start in understanding the Balfour Declaration. The aim in such public statements is to appear to give away as much as possible while actually giving away as little as possible. The prominent example here is "national home" which was a legal innovation. Many people understood "state" but actually it is rather meaningless. The second example is "in Palestine", which replaced an earlier draft that said "reconstitute Palestine as..."; it matches anything from 1% of Palestine to 100% of Palestine (compare the missing "the" in Res 242). The third example is "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", note the absence of "political". In summary, it was very carefully drafted to allow maximum future flexibility. Any explicit implementation was certain to make one or the other side, or both, unhappy. --Zero^talk 10:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On point #4, most legal texts I looked at used the words "draft" or "provisional" or "interregnal" rather than "de facto" but maybe that's not so important. The British started acting like there was a mandate in most respects when they established the civil administration in 1920 (before the borders were finalised). As you say, the legal starting point was in 1923 (discussed at length elsewhere on this page). --Zero^talk 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally to #3. The determination of borders was up to the Principal Powers (by both San Remo and Sevres decisions).

The French-British border was decided by France and Britain after very long negotiations. The starting point was the Sykes-Picot Agreement that put all of the Golan (in fact, Safed and all points north) in the French sphere. In Dec 1920 France and Britain agreed to a tentative border that put about 20% of the (region now called the) Golan Heights in Palestine and established a boundary commission to determine the details. That commission worked for all of 1921 and much of 1922 and decided to make some exchanges of land. Palestine lost the bit of the Golan it had before but gained a region on the east side of Kenneret and quite a lot of land in the Galilee panhandle. This was signed in 1923 and the land transfers were completed in April 1924. According to Biger (p153), Palestine actually increased in area and number of villages during these exchanges (but I can't see that on his map; I'll check his source). --Zero^talk 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Transjordan, it's true that the decisions were primarily made by Britain, but that was what they were allowed to do. The other Principal Powers could have objected but didn't. The League of Nations could have objected but they didn't either. Starting in 1921 the draft mandate allowed Transjordan to be separately treated (article 25 in the text passed in July 1922). On Sep 16 1922, the League Council approved Britain's interprettation of Article 25, namely that Transjordan could be excluded from the Jewish homeland provisions. This was not seen as a new policy but just an implementation. I'll quote the minutes (LofN Official Journal, Nov 1922, pp1188-1189): "Lord BALFOUR reminded his colleagues that Article 25 of the mandate for Palestine as approved by the Council in London on July 24th, 1922, provides that the territories in Palestine which lie east of the Jordan should be under a somewhat different regime from the rest of Palestine. ... The British Government now merely proposed to carry out this article. It had always been part of the policy contemplated by the League and accepted by the British Government, and the latter now desired to carry it into effect. In pursuance of the policy, embodied in Article 25, Lord Balfour invited the Council to pass a series of resolutions which modified the mandate as regards those territories. The object of these resolutions was to withdraw from Trans-Jordania the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jews west of the Jordan." The French delegate asked whether Britain "aimed at maintaining in the area to the east of the Jordan the general regime of the mandate for Palestine", to which Balfour agreed. The council then approved the motion. --Zero^talk 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem originated with Zero's Original research map where he tried to claim that the divison (making tarnsjordan a separate part of the mandate) was done in the 1920. see my original complain here: Talk:British_Mandate_of_Palestine#Problem_with_map . The truth is that the term "transjordan" came only after the UK decided to give this part of Palestine mandate to the Hasjhemite. This small detail have a clear infulance on the issue of the size alloted to the jewsih homelnd and does the western part need to be split again between Jews and Arabs.Zeq 13:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "Transjordan" (Trans-Jordan, Transjordania) as the name of a geographical region appeared during the 19th century (or earlier). Discussion of it as a possible political unit began during WWI. The decision to form an "independent" Arab state in Transjordan was made in September 1920 and confirmed at the Cairo conference in 1921. --Zero^talk 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the same map is found on the pro-Palestinian PASSIA.org site at http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html . AnonMoos 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A good example of why we don't use web pages to write Wikipedia articles. Are we really supposed to discount all of the scholarly sources (not to mention Chaim Weizmann's own account) confirming that borders were not decided at San Remo along with those that confirm "Arab Syria", including Transjordan, was under the command Faisal's chief of staff General Ali Riza el-Riqqabi? --Ian Pitchford 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IP SockPuppet has requested this image be deleted

IP SockPuppet has requested this image be deleted. []

This nomination for deletion is a violation of WP:Point and is an attempt to preempt the discussion on this talk page.

The IP editor states:

The map is self-made and is not in keeping with the best sources cited in the article in which it is used: British Mandate for Palestine.

Please note, WP:AGF does not excuse bad behavior. Clearly an editor felt it was better to try to delete the image after having lost the debate on this page.

File:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif

- Doright 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doright, do you think the comments below this "map" are in correlation with all points of view on the matter ? Or do they only reflect some points of views or maybe only one ? Alithien 12:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which comments? -Doright 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Those of the guy who assumes most important "cities" of that area were Gaza and Kuneitra ? Alithien 19:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no such comments below this map. The only text I see below the map is:

"The original Mandate for a Jewish National Home assigned to Britain at the San Remo Conference, 1920. "

The source for this language comes from all major POV's including the pro-Palestinian

Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html ,

"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home"

the Israeli government source http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/israel%20in%20maps/the%20league%20of%20nations%20mandate%20for%20palestine%20-%201920

"Area Allocated for Jewish National Home San Remo Conference" 1920.

the WP:RS source: National Public Radio (NPR online) that captions the identical area as "The original Mandate granted to Britain." []
the WP:RS source: Page 8 of Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 and page 10 of the First American Edition of the same book published by Macmillian 1975 (ISBN: 0-02-543370-9) shows this area as
"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home,"

The only POV not represented are those unique to certain editors on this page.

Since this map is so widely used and has been in existence for so many years and is used at so many Universities around the world, surely you can find some WP:RS sources that reject this map and its caption. -Doright 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Cohen, Prof. at Bar-Ilan University in The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict, 1987, p.64 writes :

Palestine and Transjordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946, but in 1922, Transjordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour Declaration applied. This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915; the linking of Palestine and Transjordan had been an administrative convenience for Britain and did not indicate any recognition of Zionist claims to the East Bank of the Jordan.

Phone him :-) Alithien 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
And I would add this primary source :

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.

and this comment :

In the Turkish Peace Treaty, drawn up by the London Conference (February 12-April 10, 1920), finalized by the San Remo Conference (April 18-26, 1920), and signed by the Turkish government at the French town of Sevres on August 10, 1920, the Mandatory for Palestine was tasked with ‘putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ ... . This was an outstanding success for the Zionists. “Though they failed to achieve their territorial goals owing to Britain’s compromise with France over Palestine’s northern frontier, and the effective separation of Transjordan from Palestine that followed in 1921, … .” Efraim Karsh, Empires of the Sand, The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923, Harvard University Press, 1999, pp.257-258...

I'm sorry but since you are merely providing seemingly pointless and random quotations that at best represent some kind of unstated WP:OR synthesis, I'm going to have to limit my replies to once every two or three days. -Doright 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As promised, I looked again at your above quotations and still can not determine how they refute the appropriateness of, or demonstrate that a POV is expressed by, showing Gaza and Kuneitra on the map. If you look at the WP:RS sources that I have provided for this map, you will see that they are included on their maps as well. I included them here because they are recognizable landmarks. Again, I respectfully suggest that you clearly state exactly what your objection is (rather than a rhetorical question) to the inclusion of Gaza and Kuneitra and then provide sources that support your claim. -Doright 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, what do you think about adding Metula on the map ? Alithien 10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Map created by User:Zero0000 is WP:OR see []

No source is identified. It is therefore not WP:RS and can not be used in this or any other WP article. - Doright 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The question of exactly when the Mandate for Palestine began arose above. This being a legal question, I have located a book that is regularly cited as a standard source on the laws of the mandate system: Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1930. Here are some relevant extracts.

1. Quoting the Council of the League of Nations, meeting of August 1920 (p109-110):

"draft mandates adopted by the Allied and Associated Powers would not be definitive until they had been considered and approved by the League ... the legal title held by the mandatory Power must be a double one: one conferred by the Principal Powers and the other conferred by the League of Nations"

2. Summarising the effect of the League Council's ruling (p110-111):

Thus three steps were necessary to put the system into effect:
(1) The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer a mandate on one of their number or on a third power;
(2) the principal powers officially notify the council of the League of Nations that a certain power has been appointed mandatory for such a certain defined territory;
(3) the coucil of the League of Nations takes official cognisance of the appointment of the mandatory power and informs the latter that it [the council] considers it as invested with the mandate, and at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate, after assertaining whether they are in conformance with the provisions of the covenant.

3. Concerning the source of the law under which the mandates operated (p516):

The mandate texts or charters have been regarded by the League and the mandatories as the fundamental law for the areas.

These conclusions are justified by Wright over many pages. In summary, until the mandate was officially approved by the League of Nations it was only a draft. Incidentally, one detail given by Wright (p114) is that the July 22, 1922 decision of the Council was only a tentative approval of the Palestine and Syria mandates. It was thought important that these two mandates should begin at the same time, but there was a dispute between France and Italy over the Syria mandate. On September 29, 1923, the French and Italian delegates announced that their disupute was resolved, so both mandates were declared to be in force immediately. --Zero^talk 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The same opinion, that a mandate does not come into legal existence until the League of Nations says so, was given in all of the law books I could find that discuss the issue (about 6). These included: Temperley, History of the Paris Peace Conference, Vol VI, p505-506; League of Nations, The Mandates System (official publication of 1945); Hill, Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship, p133ff. --Zero^talk 08:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That the Zionist Organization did not disagree with this assessment can be seen from a submission it made to the League of Nations in 1921. It refers repeatedly to the "draft Palestine Mandate" and uses the future tense. (League of Nations, Official Journal, Jul-Aug 1921, p443). --Zero^talk 08:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Two official statements from the League of Nations:

"the mandates for Palestine and Syria would now enter into force automatically and at the same time" (League of Nations Council minutes Sep 29, 1923, Official Journal, Nov 23, p1355)
In Oct 1923, Britain provided the League with two reports on the administration of Palestine and Iraq for the period 1920-1922. The Secretary General's statement accepting the reports says: "The mandate for Palestine only came into force on September 29th, 1923. The two reports cover periods previous to the application of the mandates." (League of Nations, Official Journal, Oct 1923, p1217) -- and what could be clearer than that?--Zero^talk 08:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No dispute at all of course with the above. Indeed, what could be clearer? Particularly glad you found the Zionist statement. Christopher Sykes (son of the Mark Sykes of Sykes-Picot, btw) in his Crossroads to Israel I mentioned before makes the following observations:

It was becoming increasingly clear to the politicians of the West that a peace treaty with Turkey was not to be concluded for some time yet, so in April 1920 the Allies decided that so far as the Arabic-speaking world was concerned they would implement the provisions of such a treaty as they envisaged. Such action was of course, highly illegal...this irregular conduct was more public spirited than otherwise. It was the only sensible thing to do...

I think he is saying that it is illegal because it infringed on Turkish sovereignty; the League or Allies wouldn't have the sovereignty to confer on Britain until Turkey formally gave it up. It didn't matter in the end because the Treaty of Lausanne was a few months before the League formally gave the Mandate to Britain. Not sure if he is right (HWNAL) since I think earlier documents the Turks signed may have given them this power; the text of the San Remo resolution I linked to seems to indicate this. Of course, this point only strengthens Zero's overwhelming case above if that were possible.

In any case what is more important is that that reminded me to take a look again at the text of the Treaty of Lausanne at or , which has an attached map or. It is much less pretty than the ones we have been using and you have to crop it to get a good look at the area we are interested in, but what it shows is a "Proposed British Mandate" covering "Palestine" divided by the Jordan from "Kerak or Trans-Jordan." Still saying "proposed" on July 24, 1923, again bolstering what Zero said. The vague but somewhat different borders are of interest too. Perhaps it belongs in the article.

I don't think anyone is being "mendacious" or acting in bad faith or putting in fake maps. Nobody is proposing to put OR in the article. We are just trying to give the account that the best specialists give, an account that makes sense and is possible, and does not violently conflict with universally accepted primary sources. The problem is that there is no lack of sources that give a brief, cursory version of events that seems to be or support the Revisionist Zionist "we wuz robbed" version, or that even repeat the Revisionist complaint in full detail. I sort of beleved it too once. But when you look more closely at specialist works and try to see month by month what happened, see what the most expert people say happened, this story becomes less and less plausible, its factual, primary source basis more and more elusive.

I think we are starting to amass the material for good articles on these topics. If disagreement remains, we will just have to represent it in the article in the usual way, with reasonable sources. Things that would be nice to have would be a better sourced version of the San Remo Resolution, put into context hopefully and a copy of the pre-Cairo Conference Mandate draft. Aaron Klieman has a book on the Cairo Conference which might be helpful. Wasserstein's other books would be good too. An important thing to do is to change back the San Remo article and things which link to it. Someone irrationally insists it should be Sanremo because that's what Italians call it nowadays. That's like insisting we should call the Treaty of Rome the Treaty of Roma. John Z 09:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the San Remo text in a printed source yet. Could it be in the Documents on British Foreign Policy series? --Zero^talk 10:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, I believe you can find the text in A Documentary History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Charles Geddes. I don't have immediate access but could get a copy within a few days or so. --Ian Pitchford 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. I'll get it tomorrow or Monday. --Zero^talk 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing from the library shelf. Ian, please get it if you can. --Zero^talk 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a Bank Holiday here, but I've submitted a request to the British Library Document Supply Centre to be processed on Tuesday. --Ian Pitchford 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, there are links to the text here: Sanremo_conference --Leifern 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right but a published source would be better. --Ian Pitchford 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Geddes reappeared in the library. The San Remo text is identical to the one here except for some capitalisation. Also Geddes gives translations for the French parts and omits the Italian reservation at the end. --Zero^talk 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I realize this usually goes on User Talk pages but it is well-deserved here by a number of users. Bravo. Kaisershatner 13:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed a Mediation request, naming myself, Ian Pitchford, Alithien and Doright as parties. Other people who wish to be parties, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Mandate of Palestine and add yourself. If you want to add an extra issue for mediation, add it to the "Additional issues to mediate" section. Note that that page is only for accepting or rejecting mediation; there will be another place to post arguments if the Mediation Committee accepts the case. --Zero^talk 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation: clarify?

Hi all. Could someone clarify the essence of the dispute that is being proposed for mediation? Is it the caption regarding "Jewish National Home," the specific borders on the map (Golan Heights??) or what exactly? I understand the map is being flipped back and forth, but what are the underlying issues in dispute? Kaisershatner 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification because to me it seems like this is a question of fact. Either the Mandate was or was not called "for a Jewish National Home." Either the borders were or were not established, etc. Mediation shouldn't be required to solve such a problem. Am I missing the substance of this disagreement? Kaisershatner 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the importance of the factual dispute relative to the map, and I'm not too sure about the essence of the dispute either. I think once we agree on facts the map decisions should be obvious. The Aiden/Ramallite/Zero map currently used is better IMHO. My answers, for what they are worth, to your second post's questions are respectively "was" and "were not" (in 4/20, getting established (provisionally) in 6-7/20, 3/21, etc. until 1923 and after.). I have problems about all the maps, and most or all the captions, which I think are anachronistically overprecise for the period of border establishment. I'll try to dig up an early map of Transjordan I've seen which was squarish IIRC, not the funny polygon it is now. Biger of course would be one of the best sources to answer these questions. Mainly I'm just writing now to praise you (and others e.g. Isarig and Alithien too) for the intelligence and neutrality of your edits and comments. We need to clarify the timeline and make the article more consistent with it and clarify the points of real (rather than pointless revert-warring) dispute. Tomorrow I think I'll update an old editor's timeline in Talk in light of the recent discussions. John Z 09:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Z's and Kaisershatner's comments. My point is that the map used should be neutral and not give "credit" to any point of view in some controverses on the topics. e.g:

it should not make believe Palestine (at the exception of Golan) was something else that the territories west of Jordan river.
should not make believe the interpretation that Jewish had already abandonned 80% of their "home nation's land" to Palestinians given they had been given this by San Remo conference

A controverse must be introduced in respecting NPoV and therefore explained in the main body of the article with its appropriate weight. For a "fixed picture", Zero/Ramalitte 's map is accurate, more neutral (and nicer). An improvement would be to have on the same map the history of the facts showing the evolution of the borders: of course, without "political" comments. Alithien 09:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are both factual and presentation issues.

As to facts: the borders on the yellow-on-white map reflect the facts from 1923 (Anglo-French final agreement on the northern border) until 1946 (independence of Transjordan) except for some stuff about the borders with Arabia and Iraq that I hope we can ignore. Actually there is a small error at the south end of Kinneret that should be fixed. During this whole period Palestine and Transjordan had almost complete administative separation so there is no reason to not show the border between them. Maybe the earlier (end of 1920) tentative northern border can be shown as well on the full scale map but the difference is so small that it will be hardly visible on the thumb, and that would also introduce the problem that the eastern borders were not defined even approximately in 1920.
As to presentation: this is an article on the Mandate for Palestine, not on the Jewish National Home. Of course the two are deeply related and this should be (and is) a key focus of the article. However, I object to having the map present one particular Zionist complaint ("loss" of Transjordan). For one thing the accuracy of the complaint is highly debatable and captions should not show just one side of a debate. For another thing, NPOV is violated if a Zionist complaint is highlighted but no Arab complaint is highlighted. Why is the closure of east-of-Jordan to Jewish immigration more worthy of mention than the denial of political rights to the Arabs west-of-Jordan? Since it is not possible to do justice to both sides in an image caption, the solution is to mention neither.

--Zero^talk 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, I disagree very much with the two complaints you have equated above, but the good news is I agree that neither ought to be mentioned in the caption in that form and I agree that "it is not possible to do justice to both sides in an image caption." The caption should stick closely to objective facts. (1) Here is the original mandate, (2) it was subdivided in 1922 with settlement closed to Jewish immigration east of the Jordan. Whether or not that was a broken promise to the Jews or to the Arabs, it is objectively true, right? Kaisershatner 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ok for such captions but let's not forget the territories east of Hulah valley given to French Mandate but initially part of the British Mandate.

nb: Whether or not it is a "broken promise" to these or those, is neither true nor false. It is a question of "interpretation" and they are different ones concerning that.

About facts in the article : I think in 1946, it is not the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan that was created but the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan and that it changed its name in Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1949. Could someone confirm ? Alithien 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kaisershatner: two objections to your reasoning.

The problem with "here is the original mandate" is that the borders being shown as original borders are not original borders at all. The borders shown are post-1923 borders with an important detail (Palestine-Transjordan boundary) absent. If we want to show the region before the decision to separate Transjordan, we could show the Palestine-Syria border approximately, as that was more-or-less decided in Dec 1920, but we would need to leave the eastern border unspecified as it had not been determined yet even roughly.
The narratives of all sides consist of a mixture of undisputed facts and disputed claims. The Zionist side claimed (disputed) that they were entitled to settle Transjordan and (objectively) that they weren't allowed to. The Arab side claimed (disputed) that Palestine was included in the pledges made to Hussein in 1915 regarding independence for the Arabs, and (objectively) that this independence was prevented in Palestine. (Look at the map as seen from the Arab perspective). The British claimed (disputed) that the Balfour Declaration applied west of the Jordan and the Hussein pledge applied east of the Jordan, and (objectively) implemented it like that. NPOV requires that the narratives of the different sides be all represented. Jewish immigration to Transjordan is in fact a very small part of the story and unfairly emphasises the Zionist narrative. --Zero^talk 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To Alithien: Between 1920 and 1924 several land tranfers between the British and French spheres took place. The western edge of the Golan was one of them but not the only one. According to excellent sources I found (which I will post here after I study them some more), the total effect was that the area of Palestine increased. --Zero^talk 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have in mind a pair of maps, one for pre-1921 and one for post-1921, that shows when each border was determined. --Zero^talk 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zero, I have in mind Metula area was "exchanged" in 1922 but I am confident you have better and more accurate information than I have :-) Maybe an additional map "zooming" on the exchanged areas could also be valuable. If I can help drawing some maps, tell me? Alithien 10:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult because I found lots of descriptions but no maps that match the descriptions. For example, the following appears in a 1925 report: "The boundary line between the two areas was adjusted in Apr 1924, in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of Mar 1923. An area of 75 sq miles [194 sq km] with 20 villages was brought within the frontiers of Palestine. It included the ancient district of Dan...". That's a large area, but where was it exactly? I'm pretty sure that in 1920 the identification of Tel Dan as Dan was unknown. As another example, I have a map that shows the 1920s road (different from the present road) from Banias to Metulla well inside Palestine, but Biger says that the road was in the French sphere. You would think that the actual border descriptions in the British-French agreements would set the record straight, but no such luck. The 1920s agreement includes things like "From Metullah the frontier will reach the watershed of the valley of the Jordan and the basin of the Litani. Thence it will follow this watershed southwards." Eh? I'm still looking. --Zero^talk 11:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zero, I think we agree more than disagree about this. I see your point about "here is the original mandate." Let us instead consider captioning the map more precisely, something like "Mandate of Palestine, approximate borders in 1922. The precise borders of the Mandate were poorly defined and evolved during negotiations among many of the involved parties. See: link to appropriate section in article." (My wording is poor, but that is the general idea, something like that, ok?). About #2, I agree that Jewish immigration to Transjordan is a small enough part of the story that it should not be mentioned in the caption- British partitioning of it should probably remain. Ok? Kaisershatner 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero, maybe this map could help. It is 25 years later but it is quite "precise". Alithien 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a lovely map and I hope you noticed the Moshe Dayan autograph on it. Btw, look at the village of Sa'sa, grid reference x=187,y=270. The 1920 border put it in Lebanon. --Zero^talk 09:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So it is good. This map gives the borders of 1946. From your side if you can list the villages that changed side we could use the map as support to draw a zoom of the areas exchanged. With cross referencing with other maps if needed.

What do you think? Alithien 07:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A series of maps showing the evolving status of the borders would be best. It's clear from the discussion above that even the simple point that the Mandate was not partitioned is not being assimilated by the quite knowledgeable contributors to this discussion. Transjordan was added to the Mandate in 1921. Until then it had been part of Occupied Enemy Territories East under the command of Faisal's chief of staff General Ali Riza el-Riqqabi and then part of Arab Syria. The opportunity to add Transjordan to the mandated territories only arose with the expulsion of Faisal from Syria and the disintegration of his authority in the rest of Arab Syria. As Bernard Wasserstein writes:

In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarizing the conclusions of the [San Remo] conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there. Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there - but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement. (Wasserstein, Bernard (2004). Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?, pp. 105-106.)

Could that be clearer? --Ian Pitchford 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Ian, 110% except for the ' was not partitioned is not being assimilated ' part. Since I've been saying for a while that this point Wasserstein makes is the best way to characterize what happened, I feel happy that at last he (& I) have definitely made a convert! Sorry for not posting this extract & more myself earlier. Zero's exposition of the 3 possibilities discussed for the future of Transjordan at San Remo seems definitive on this point. I agree that a sequence of maps would be best, and with Zero's suggestion that there be pre& post 1921 maps, the first of Palestine proper and then P +TJ, maybe with dates on the other borders. I think "closed to Jewish settlement" used sometimes is probably too strong. There was practically no Zionist interest in settling there in the first place cf. Sachar's book; as I said before the 1921 Jewish population was 2-3 people; Were Jews/Zionists actually prevented from settling there, or was settlement just not explicitly allowed and encouraged? Strict interpretation of the third clause of the Balfour Declaration might have dictated that the answer was just the latter. John Z 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone might find the following book helpful Palestine Boundaries 1833-1947. Sounds like it would come in handy in a physical argument. Since it is so cheap I'd really appreciate it if someone could pick one up for me as a present. This article by Daniel Pipes makes the clearly unintentional mistake of the San Remo borders definitely being P + TJ, but otherwise is quite neutral, and makes the point that Jordan had an interest in the Jordan-is Palestine mythology. Concerning something Zero said, a funny, and I believe true story is that after Lloyd George opined that the borders should be the biblical Dan to Beersheba at San Remo, the question came up just where Dan was - and of course nobody knew. Luckily it Tel Dan was discovered a year or two later, just in time for the boundary drawing. See if I can find a reference on that.John Z 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazon's price for a used copy of Toye is $64 greater than a new copy costs from the publisher. It consists of 2500 pages copied from the British and French archives. I've ordered it by interlibrary loan; not sure if that will work. To add to the discussion, Ingrams Palestine Papers 1917-1922 quotes a British document giving the boundaries of Palestine in 1921. It says "on the east, the boundary is undefined" (p117). --Zero^talk 09:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got a copy of a very detailed paper on this subject: Y. Gil-Har, "The Separation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine", The Jerusalem Cathedra, vol. 1, 1981, pp284-313 (translated from the Hebrew journal Cathedra). Gil-Har agrees very well with Wasserstein's summary quoted above. One extra item I found interesting: at the time of the San Remo conference, some of the politicians thought Transjordan was going to be part of the French mandate for Syria. --Zero^talk 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is well known and documented that TransJordan was given to the Hashemites by Churchill in 'thanks' for their siding with the alies. They were landless as they were kicked out of Arabia for their treason! Giving away 78% of the Mandate was an illegal act. The new Hashemtite 'Kingdom' was also to be Jew free. 36,000 Jews were expelled and their property confiscated. ...[Fivish UK 21.1.2008]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.226.205 (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alithien above correctly questioned the name of Transjordan at its independence in 1946. It was "The Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan". Amongst other proofs, see the name under which they applied for membership of the UN . I also have a translation of the 1946 constitution, which says "(The?) Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" (I guess the choice between "Transjordan" and "Trans-Jordan" was made by the translator and doesn't reflect a distinction in the Arabic, but it would be nice if someone can confirm that). The name "Hashemite Jordan Kingdom" is frequent in the UN documents for about Apr-Oct 1949, then "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" starts in Nov 1949. It is clear that the usual story that the "Trans" was only dropped when the West Bank was annexed in 1950 is not correct. --Zero^talk 04:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More historical trivia. Palestine Post report of Jan 25, 1949: "The Trans-Jordan Government has decided to alter the name of the country to the "Jordania Hashemite Kingdom". And if that's not confusing enough, the Palestine Post of Mar 3, 1949 reports that the name had been changed to "El Mamlaka el Hashemiah el Urdun (Jordan Hashemite Kingdom)" on the coronation of King Abdullah (25 May 1946) and that in 1949 there was an argument in the Arab League about Jordan's correct position in the alphabetical list of members. The PP of Apr 4, 1949 refers to "what is newly termed the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom" (this is the name used on the armistice agreement with Israel). On May 6, 1949, PP reported: "Letters in English to the Trans-Jordan Government not addressed to 'The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan' will be ignored, the Prime Minister has announced, according to 'El Urdun'". I suspect that "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" and "Hashemite Jordan Kingdom" are just different ways to translate the same Arabic name, and that the name didn't really change after the "trans" was dropped in Jan 1949. --Zero^talk 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this precise work! I read yesterday in the French version of E. Rogan and A. Shlaim, Palestine 1948 that the name officially changed in april 1950 when Cisjordan was annexed. So I think it can be concluded that Transjordan changed its name to Jordan to notify their annexion of the West Bank even it they prepared this starting 1 year sooner... Alithien 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The odd thing is that I searched PP for all of 1950 looking for anything about name changes and found nothing. There are lots of articles about the annexation though. I guess some minor administrative thing might not have been worth a mention, but on the other hand, Rogan and Shlaim might be wrong. --Zero^talk 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. They can be wrong. I am quite sure I also read this elsewhere but I don't remember where. Maybe Pappé... I try to gather information about this. Alithien 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this in google books :

Jordan - A Hashemite Legacy by Beverley Milton-Edwards, p.14

"(...). [Abdullah] subsequently formally annexed the territory he held on April 1950. A resolutoin to unite both banks of the river Jordan (East and West) was introduced into parliament by a group of Palestinian deputies and was passed unanimously. This act was recognised by Britain three days later. This annexation followed elections held on both sides of the Jordan. In the meantime the country's name was changed to the Hashemite Kindgom of Jordan and theree Palestinians were included in the cabined. (...)"

If I understand well he claims the name was changed between these elections and the annexion... Alithien 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On this website, that seems to be an official Jordanian website, they claim the name of "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" was officially chosen on May 25, 1946. They also give the date at which the election described by Milton Edwards : April 11, 1950.

On wikipedia, an editor has written that the name changed from Trans-Jordan to Jordan in March 1949 and that in 1946, it is the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan that was founded... (no precise source is given but this book : Harding, G. Lankester. 1959. The Antiquities of Jordan. Lutterworth Press, London. 2nd impression, 1960.)

That last one is correct. It is absolutely certain that the name chosen in 1946 was "Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan" because that is what appears on the most important documents, including the constitution (1946), the application to join the UN (1946), and the defense treaty with Britain (March 1948). It is also absolutely certain that by the start of 1952 the name was "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" because that is what is stated in the new constitution adopted then. In both cases the constitution is undoubtedly the ultimate authority. As for when the change occured, I don't think we can do better than what the Palestine Post says (March 1949), which corresponds to the moment the UN started using the new name. The UN always uses the names that countries ask to be known by, so that is a very good indicator. The only possible issue here could be that the country began to use a name in practice that wasn't strictly-legally-speaking its official name; only a very explicit source that focusses on this point would suffice to establish that. Further searching of primary sources ought to be done in Arabic. --Zero^talk 13:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The map is still wrong. it is Original by one of the participants here. we need a map from a real source. In any case this is an important source on the issue and on other such subjects such as rightofreturn. Zeq 12:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The map in the article is the best map we have today. Alithien 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, what's wrong with it? How can it be improved?--Doron 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an exchange of territories in 1920-22 period between the French and the British concerning their mandate borders. It would not be bad if the map showed the Golan was initially in the British Mandate but there was also territories that were not initially in the British Mandate they came in it (it was an exchange). Alithien 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero gives far more details here above...

You are referring to the provisional borders (which placed only a part of the Golan Heights in Palestine, by the way). Why should the map of the Mandate reflect provisional borders, which were in effect only for a couple of years, and had no practical consequences because they were poorly-defined, and not the official borders, which were in effect during almost the entire period of the Mandate? Should a map of the Soviet Union reflect its borders during the early 1920's?--Doron 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This reflected the pov of revisionnist zionism in the past and today gives some legitimity to the annexion of Golan by Israel. Alithien 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to have a map that show the evolution of the boundary of Palestine? If this is what you mean, then it's a good idea, but it should be in addition to the main map that shows the final official boundary.--Doron 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Alithien 14:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gabi S., what's the problem exactly? I click on the link and get a map. What do yo mean by "link doesn't exist"?--Doron 11:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct name of this article should be British Mandate FOR Palestine, not "of" Palestine. --Gilabrand 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An even more correct name would be "Mandate for Palestine", the word "British" is redundant. Beit Or 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "British" is not redundant - it was called the British Mandate for short, to distinguish it from the French Mandate. Anyway the name of the article should reflect the name of the system used by those who established it. The fact that Wikipedia uses the term wrongly, to denote a "place," needs to be corrected. The Mandate was a SYSTEM of administration, not a geographical place.--Gilabrand 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not redundant ? The French mandate was in Syria... Alithien 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer "for" over "of". As for "British", I don't see the harm in it, seeing that other colonies also have the name of thier colonial master: (eg. British Raj, British Malaya, British Ceylon).Bless sins 11:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there was and is a "non-British" Ceylon, but there had never been a non-British mandate for Palestine. Beit Or 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also found "Palestine Mandate" without the "For" or the "Of". I suggest we would try to find "scholar references" or "primary sources" with the use of the different expressions:

"Mandate of Palestine" vs "Mandate for Palestine" vs "Palestine Mandate"
"British Mandate" (of or for) vs "Mandate" (of or for)

Alithien 08:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of British Mandate FOR Palestine:

Sanders, Ronald, The high walls of Jerusalem : a history of the Balfour Declaration and the birth of the British mandate for Palestine, NYC, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.
Mtholyoke Britman
Palestine Facts Mandate Overview
The term appears several times in Biger, Gideon, An empire in the holy land: Historical Geography of the British administration in Palestine, 1917-1929.

The title page of the document drawn up at the conference calls it "Mandate FOR Palestine." The text reads: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine..." --Gilabrand 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The defaced red ensign was never the OFFICIAL flag of the mandate, the Union Flag was. The red ensign was only used on merchant ships registered in the mandate. There was also an interesting "Palestine badge proposal" depiciting the old part of Jerusalem (which may have been used on the Union flag or a blue or red defaced ensign) in 1933 but this never saw the light of day. Source fotw.net -Unsigned

Another of the mufti rivals, Raghib Bey al-Nashashibi, had been appointed mayor of Jerusalem in 1920, replacing Musa Kazim who had been involved in the 1920 Palestine riots.

I think that what Rhashidi means is that Rashidi was a rival of Musa Qazzem, not of the Mufti. In 1920, Hadj Amin was not yet Mufti of Jerusalem and was quite young to be a rival. Would not Khalidi means that:

Qazzem was a famous nationalist leader
A young guy, Hadj Amin was appointed Mufti by the British to weaken his position (internal rivalry)
He was replaced as Mayor of Jerusalem by another rival, a Nashashidi (external rivalry).

I am not sure to understand. If so, this is problematic. What does Khalidi mean exactly ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He means that both were rivals of the mufti. One rival from his own family, the other from the Nashashibis. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. In that case, I think there is a (little) problem with this:

The British also tried to create divisions among these elites. For instance they chose Hajj Amin al-Husayni to become Grand Mufti, although he was young and had recieved the fewest votes from Jerusalem’s Islamic leaders.[45]. Hajj Amin was a distant cousin of Musa Kazim al-Husainy, the leader of the Palestine Arab Congress. According to Khalidi, by appointing a younger relative, the British hoped to undermine the position of Musa Kazim.[46] Indeed they stayed rivals untill the death of Musa Kazim in 1934. Another of the muftis rivals, Raghib Bey al-Nashashibi, had already been appointed mayor of Jerusalem in 1920, replacing Musa Kazim whom the British removed after the Nabi Musa riots of 1920.[47][48] During the entire Mandate period, but especially during the latter half the rivalry between the mufti and al-Nashashibi dominated Palestinian politics

This sounds as if the appoinment of Nashashibi as Mayor had the purpose to harm the Mufti and create division among the Palestinians, which is not at all the case. May I suggest this:

The British tried to create divisions among these elites. For instance they chose Hajj Amin al-Husayni to become Grand Mufti, although he was young and had received the fewest votes from Jerusalem’s Islamic leaders.[45]. Hajj Amin was a distant cousin of Musa Kazim al-Husainy, the leader of the Palestine Arab Congress. According to Khalidi, by appointing a younger relative, the British hoped to undermine the position of Musa Kazim.[46] They stayed rivals untill the death of Musa Kazim in 1934.

Nevertheless, The main rivalry that dominated Palestinian politics during the entire Mandate and especially was the one between the Mufti and Raghib Bey al-Nashashibi who had been appointed mayor of Jerusalem in 1920, replacing Musa Kazim following his involvment in the Nabi Musa riots[48].

Concerning the reasons of the appointment, Benny Morris and Tom Segev, referring to Bernard Wasserstein (see also here - Herbert Samuel's biographer) give other reasons for this. While not among the 3 first, the Mufti would have succeeded in organising "broad public support for himself" and Herbert Samuel would have given him the job to satisfy the arab crowd. Another reason is that the former Muftis (his brother and before his father) had done a very good job for the British. Another reason is that the other prestigious "post" (mayor of Jesuralem) had been given to a rival of the Husseinis clan and so it was good that it would be given to an Husseini. Finally Samuel also expected he would be able to keep the country in peace after the 1921 riots. How to take this into account? Could you also check on what material Rashid Khalidi refer to give his analysis? Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

nb: I am not good at English but I thought it was Mufti's rival and not Muftis rival (I don't know).

Interesting : Ilan Pappé's pov on the matter. Ceedjee (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi doesn't mention this fact you mention below: Mayor Husseini was removed from his post and replaced by Ragheb al-Nashashibi, a member of a powerful Jesurlaem family involved in a long and bitter feud with the Husseinis. , but I think it supports Khalidi's view. On p.69 of 'the iron cage' he writes: 'The appointment of ... al-Nashashibi ... was another example of this divide and rule policy. ... It can be surmised that among the reasons ... was the objective of inflaming that preexisting feud.' --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee: (1) Are you sure Tom Segev days Musa Kazim al-Husayni was involved in the riots? Khalidi just says he was replaced after the riots. (2) I'm not sure about the 20,000, where you put a citation needed. The 'Revolt' text is mainly a copy from the 1948 War article, so if its wrong here its wrong there. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, (point 1) To be very precise, Tom Segev, p.139 writes: More than 200 people were put on tiral in the aftermath of Nebi Musa, among them 39 Jews. One of the rapists who had assaulted the Lifschitz sisters was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Haj Amin al-Husseini and Aref al-Aref were each given tne years for incitement to riot, but they were no longer in the city - the tow of them had fled. Mayor Husseini was removed from his post and replaced by Ragheb al-Nashashibi, a member of a powerful Jesurlaem family involved in a long and bitter feud with the Husseinis.

In the French version of Righteous Victims, p.116, Benny Morris writes (free translation): In August, Musa Qazzim, who had been removed from his post of mayor of Jerusalem by the British for his role in the riots of April, declared (...) [nationalist slogans].

On the factual point of view: p.112, in the description of the events, Morris writes that "Musa Qazzim exhorted the crowd to give their blood for Palestine". Tom Segev, p.128 just precise that he did so from the "balcony of the municipal building".

(point 2) I don't know either. It is just it is an important number that should deserve a reference I think. Ceedjee (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I added Morris pov (I assume the referece is to righteous victims). --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Hertz has made an edit changing where the boundaries of the Mandate lie. According to the sources, by 1922 the Transjordan was a separate mandate and should therefore be listed as the eastern boundary of the British Mandate in Palestine, unless we are defining boundaries for the first two years of the Mandate only. Tiamut 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire’s South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with "The Great Game" and planning for the Suez Canal.{{Fact|date=November 2007}}
Eminent British figures such as Queen Victoria, her son King Edward VII, Prime Minister Lloyd George, 19th century Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour were among the enthusiastic proponents of Zionism.{{Fact|date=November 2007}}
The British mobilised up to 20,000 Jews (policemen, field troops and night squads){{Fact|date=December 2007}}.
The British had strategic interests in Arab support, because of their interests in Egypt and control of oil production in Iraq, Kuwait and the Emirates, and especially to guarantee the friendship of oil-rich Saudi Arabia.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}

Please don't restore these or similar statements without a citation.--BirgitteSB 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel and Jordan are fine... even though Israel and Jordan weren't created at exactly the same time... it's in the right ball park... but I've changed the Palestinian National Authority to "Palestinian territories" because the PNA was not established until 1994. I'm not even sure we should have any Palestinian entity since the West Bank was controlled by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt... maybe we need articles like Jordanian control of the West Bank and Egyptian control of Gaza. I am not sure but suggestions would be great. gren グレン 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently this article is hosted at 'British Mandate of Palestine'. The introduction introduces it as 'The Palestine Mandate', two other alternatives, THEN 'British Mandate of Palestine'. I think it would be best if the article started off with the name reflecting the title of the article itself. This could be served by moving the last term to the forefront, or moving the article to 'The Palestine Mandate'. I don't know enough about this issue to know which of these four titles (or more) would be most appropriate. Seeing as how this talk hasn't seen any activity for over half a year, I think now would be a good time for those in the know to discuss this to improve the article. Tyciol (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned in the introduction that the British and French governments employed the new League of Nations Mandate system to remove the nascent government of Syria and Palestine, and prevented the formation of an Arab confederation of states. Since this has always been a matter of disputed state succession, it is important that the basic facts be included in the article.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement had called for an independent Arab state, or confederation of states. The portion of the agreement that covered the International Condominium for Jerusalem specifically mentioned the participation of the Sharif of Mecca. The state of Hedjaz was not occupied or subjected to any League of Nations mandate.

At the Paris Peace Conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George told the allies that (1) The McMahon-Hussein Notes were a treaty obligation;(2) That the agreement with Hussein had actually been the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement;(3) That the French could not use the proposed League Of Nations Mandate System to break the terms of the Hussein Agreement; (4)That if the French occupied the areas of Damascus, Homs, Homa, and Allepo it would be a violation of the agreement. Arthur Balfour was present at this meeting. see pages 1-10 of the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Four starting here: 'The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 1'

President Wilson was in attendance, and said the United States was indifferent to the claims of Great Britain and France over peoples, unless those peoples wanted them. He recommended that a commission of inquiry be sent to the region. The King-Crane Commission recognized the Syrian Congress and Faisal as representatives of the Palestinian people. Decades later the UNSCOP Committee also claimed that the Syrian Congress had represented the Palestinian community:

"178. With regard to the allegation that the wishes of the Palestine community had not been the principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory Power, it should be noted that the resolutions of the General Syrian Congress of 2 July 1919, in considering under certain conditions the possibility of the establishment of a mandate over the Arab countries, gave Great Britain as a second choice, the United States of America being the first. This choice was also noted by the King-Crane Commission."A/364, 3 September 1947

The Anglo-French Declaration of 1918 had authorized the Arabs to establish their own governments, and they did. Here is a chronology :

On 30 September 1918 supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus had declared a government. see Jordan: Living in the Crossfire, Alan George, Zed Books, 2005, ISBN 1842774719, page 6

On 6 January 1920 Prince Faisal initialed an agreement with French Prime Minister Clemenceau which acknowledged 'the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation'. see Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920-1925, by Timothy J. Paris, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0714654515, Page 69

A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had declared an independent state of Syria on the 8th of March 1920. The new state included Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, and portions of northern Mesopotamia. see King's Complete History of the World War, William C. King, The History Associates, 1922, page 665 King Faisal was declared the head of State. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia.

The Supreme Council held at San Remo, Italy, on April 25, 1920 and attended by the representatives of the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States (in the capacity of an observer).

This decision read in part (file 763.72119/9869, document I.C.P. 106):

"(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proce's-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;"

At San Remo, the Allied and Associated Powers once again agreed to recognize the provisional independence of the existing states of Syria and Mesopotamia. The Palestinians had previously enjoyed the right to participate in the Syrian Congress.

The French issued their ultimatum and the Battle of Maysalun took place in June 1920.

The French asked Faisal to leave Damascus in August 1920. harlan (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the this article? Did this "state" have any control over Palestine? Mashkin (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Did this "state" have any control over Palestine?" Yes. The Arabs under Faisal had full powers of administration over OETA East, including Transjordan. On the strength of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence of 1915-1916, the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918, the "Hogarth-Message", the Basset letter, and the "Declaration to the Seven", they declared an independent "government" (not a "state") in 1918. After the Faisal-Clemenceau agreement was concluded, the Arabs declared an independent state and ordered that a decentralized civil government be instituted as soon as arrangements could be made for cessation of the foreign military occupation. see The New York Times Report.

Answer: it did not have control over Palestine. This whole discussion is not relevant here. Mashkin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong! Transjordan was administered under the British Mandate from day one.harlan (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This just shows how twisted your logic is. The article clearly discusses the British Mandate over (western Palestine). Transjordan is discussed only vis a vis its relation with that part (e.g. why it was not part of the administration etc). So your argument is somehow that since arabs had control over that part they had control over the western part and then the British came and took over. This is just not the way history happened. Mashkin (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sharif of Mecca declared the independence of Arabia on June 27, 1916 shortly after Turkey attacked the Suez Canal. See International Law Documents, Naval War College, 1918, Proclamation of the Sherif of Mecca The British certainly had not occupied Palestine at that point in time, but the intended audience had been living there all of their lives. That proclamation was followed by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was in-turn followed by the liberation of Baghdad, Jerusalem, and Damascus see A History of the Great War, Bertram Benedict, Bureau of National Literature, 1919, page 679. The Zionist Organization recognized the Arab State, and the legal competence of the Sharif to dispose of its territory when they concluded the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement in January of 1919. Article II proposed a border commission operating with the consent of the state parties. TEXT OF THE FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT

The Allied and Associated powers had already decided that there would be a strict policy of non-annexation. see the ICJ judgment in International Status of South West Africa, page 11. That decision was taken in accordance with the proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force that had been announced by the First International Conference of American States in 1890, and incorporated in President Wilson's Fourteen Points. see the preamble of the Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity Act of 1945 for more details.

Wilson called for "an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development" and the British and French had already issued written guarantees supporting the complete and definite emancipation of the Arab people, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations. The indigenous population had those guarantees in hand when they declared their independent government, and their independent state in Syria. There had never been such a thing as a mandate before, and there were none in existence at that time. They were only drafted during the San Remo conference, after the declaration of the new Arab state. In any event, they were not ratified by the League of Nations for several years. see for example Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Antonio Cassese, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 052163752X, starting at page 232.

As for the establishment of Transjordan: The British government insisted on fixing the borders according to biblical formulas. Those were set by the Jordan river crossing recorded in Yehoshua - Joshua 4:1-7; and the limits of "Dan to Beersheba" mentioned in Shoftim - Judges 20:1. Gideon Bigger relates that Lloyd George interrupted the Deauville negotiations with the French regarding the northern boundary to consult George Adam Smith's works about the geography of the Holy Land. see The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947, Gideon Biger, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0714656542, page 120

The Jordan river had been the western limit of the pre-war Vilayet of Damascus. It was not a coincidence that the territory lying to the east of that line was included in the area designated by the McMahon-Hussein agreement for Arab independence. It had been placed under OETA North. The British had never occupied Transjordan. The Making of Jordan, Yoav Alon, I.B.Tauris, 2007, ISBN 1845111389 pages 20-22 explains that the first British tribal encounter occurred after the Battle of Maysalun and the collapse of the Syrian government. Herbert Samuel only left three British officers behind to help administer the area.

The application of the McMahon agreement in setting the intra-state Palestine boundary is described in meticulous detail using archive materials in Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis, Suzanne Lalonde, McGill-Queen's Press, 2002, ISBN 077352424X , pages 96-101. Note that the existence of the private Anglo-French Settlement of 1-4 December 1918 only came to light when Lloyd George and the others published their memoirs. There are no records of the Syrian-Mosel agreement in the UK National Archives. The British did not occupy Transjordan, and Lalonde is either unaware of the "Bible Dictionary" border agreement concluded at Deauville, or doesn't give it much credence. She concluded that the principle of uti possidetis de jure was not applied in this case.

Nonetheless an "Aide-Me'moire in Regard to the Occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia Pending the Decision in Regard to Mandates" was placed before the Peace Conference in October 1919. It set the boundaries for Palestine. The border Commission only handled the task of delineating and demarcation. It stipulated that:

'1. Steps will be taken immediately to prepare for the evacuation by the British Army of Syria and Cilicia including the Taurus tunnel. 2. Notice is given both to the French Government and to the Emir Feisal of our intentions to commence the evacuation of Syria and Cilicia on November 1, 1919'... ...6. The territories occupied by British troops will then be Palestine, defined in accordance with its ancient boundaries of Dan to Beersheba.'text of the Aide-Me'moire

The members of the League of Nations passed a resolution on 23 September 1923 which contained a list of articles from the Palestine Mandate that were not applicable to the territory known as Transjordan. Here is a link to a copy of the mandate and memo. All of the remaining articles were applied by the British High Commissioner and the mandatory administration. harlan (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Western Palestine had been under international administration since 1757. see UN DOC A/AC.24/SR.51, page 12. The Ottoman courts shared municipal jurisdiction with various Consular courts, and the religious courts of the Latin and Orthodox Protectorates. The Sykes-Picot agreement provided for consultation and the participation of the Sharif of Mecca in the international condominium and the establishment of an Arab buffer state corresponding to OETA North between the Allied zones of influence on the Syrian Coast and the province of Mosel in Iraq. This had been public knowledge since 1917 when the Russians published the text of the Sykes-Picot treaty. see FRUS, 1917, supplement 2, WWI, page 491

This is a new invention/interpretation - that "Western Palestine had been under international administration since 1757". It is original research. Mashkin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Covenant of the League of Nations required the "scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations". Most of the nations of Europe and the Americas had extraterritoriality and trade concession agreements with the Ottoman Empire. That is not a new invention or interpretation.

The fact that foreigners enjoyed extraordinary privileges and immunities, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, was addressed in Article 8 of the Palestine Mandate itself (how's that for relevant?). That article provided that at the expiration of the mandate, those privileges would be immediately reestablished.

Article 18 of the mandate preserved trade concessions of the LoN member states and their companies. That provision resulted in the landmark PCIJ ruling involving the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions. In 1881, the Ottoman Empire had established "The Council of the Public Debt". It was operated by foreign bondholders. The agency collected tax revenues from the Ottoman citizenry, and sold development concessions like those held by Mavrommatis to retire the Empire's debts. see Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page Page 34.

Extraterritoriality refers to a legal regime where a state claims exclusive jurisdiction over its citizens residing in another state. For example, American consular courts had jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters in the Ottoman Empire by virtue of treaties, usage, and precedent. The rules for the US consular courts of the Ottoman Empire are published, and in the public domain. see The Origin of the Capitulations and of the Consular Institution, Gabriel Bie Ravndal, Published by Govt. Print. Off., 1921 The United States insisted that its rights under the Capitulations remained in force, and that its citizens were not subject to the customs, other taxes, or the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the new British Mandatory courts. see The Memo from Lord Curzon to the American Charge' Wheeler which is also in the public domain; and From New Zion to Old Zion: American Jewish Immigration and Settlement in Palestine, 1917-1939, Joseph B. Glass, Wayne State University Press, 2002, ISBN 0814328423, page 134 Moshe Davis also noted that United States citizens in Palestine were claiming the right to have their cases heard in their own consular courts, under the terms of the Capitulations. see With Eyes Toward Zion: Themes and Sources in the Archives of the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and Israel, Published by Praeger, 1986, ISBN 0275920909, page 48.

UN GAR 181(II) contained a provision about the Capitulations: "States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to the re-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem." States were under no obligation to renounce their privileges and immunities. The history of those international undertakings were discussed as a matter pertaining to the City of Jerusalem during the hearings on Israel's application for membership in the United Nations. see UN DOC A/AC.24/SR.51, page 12 harlan (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, a very long argument with many facts that tells us nothing about the article and the question. If you want this discussion to be productive you have to be much more concise and to the point. Mashkin (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It tells you why the info was relevant, and documents the fact that it wasn't original research. The European and American States were running their own tax collection department within the Turkish government, and they ran their own civil and criminal courts. The Hedjaz was a charter member of the LoN. Nothing in the Mandate prevented the British from permitting Muslim religious leaders from participating in the courts and councils of Palestine. Article 14 of the Mandate required the appointment of a special commission to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. harlan (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman's lost their former territories through "dereliction". Sovereignty was in abeyance under the occupation and during the period of the LoN mandate. see Nationality and Statelessness in International Law pages 20-22. harlan (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it relevant? Mashkin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That citation makes reference to a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations which made it clear that the mandate territories were not transferred to France or Great Britain, and that they were not given sovereignty over them. The three Ottoman and seven former German territories were initially partitioned and managed under 15 mandates. Nothing in the terms of the Mandate prevented either mandatory from honoring its previous commitments regarding Arab independence.

In 1919 most of the "states" of the world were neither independent nor sovereign. Quite a few of them, like the Crown Colony of India were charter members of the League of Nations. A Confidential report was prepared for the US Government by W. W. Willoughby, Johns Hopkins University, and C.G. Fenwick, Bryn Mawr College in 1919 on the subject of "Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy". It listed all of the non-sovereign states, and the limitations imposed upon each of them. In any case, the U.S. had diplomatic relations with most of them.

There was, and is, a legal difference between an independent government and a sovereign state. see for example the discussion in the Israeli Provisional Council on the eve of Independence. The British and French had agreed to help establish independent Arab "governments". The Sykes-Picot agreement called for establishment of an Arab state or confederation of Arab states in the French and British indirect spheres of influence (a type of limited sovereignty). Palestine was partitioned with LoN permission, and Transjordan was established in the British indirect sphere of influence as an "independent government", but not an independent state. see the US State Department Memo for a complete explanation. Nothing prevented the French from doing the very same thing in their Syrian Mandate, and Lloyd George said as much at the Peace Conference. This is all notable and very well documented from WP:RS sources harlan (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no such thing as the "Arab government of Palestine" and no matter how long your arguments are they will not change it. Mashkin (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The League of Nations Mandates were international legal instruments. The mandated territories held an international legal status. see ICJ Reports, International Status of South West Africa, 1950.

When the question of Palestine was referred to the United Nations, the three Jewish Agency spokesmen claimed it was a legal case based upon the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. Their legal counsel, Jacob Robinson, published a book about the UNSCOP hearings and made the same claim. See Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to Solution, By Jacob Robinson, Public Affairs Press, 1947, page 203.

The negotiating history of the Allied and Associated Powers and their published discussions about the obligations arising from their international undertakings are a little more relevant than yet another discussion about the history of the ancient Canaanites and Israelites. harlan (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The text quoted is actually the second paragraph. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about the US and a statement such as "Under the plan of the US Constitution, Article 1, the Congress was delegated the power to declare or define the Law of Nations in cases where its terms might be vague or indefinite." makes this into a ridiculously US centric one. instead of succinctly saying that the US signed a specific agreement with the UK concerning the relationship with Palestine it goes on and on and the eight changed article are not significant. Mashkin (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a legal instrument. The British government claimed the mandates were part of the "Law of Nations", but never acted like they were. Balfour was speaking in his official capacity as the President of the LoN Council in the quotation cited in the article. In the very same breath, he pointed out that the League of Nations (a non-state entity), had no control over the Mandatory, and never explained who did.

The US sent their own King-Crane Commission to Palestine under the auspices of the Supreme War Council's "Council of Four" to make recommendations regarding the terms and the allocation of this particular mandate. No other country did that.

The US had a formal treaty convention with regard to the Palestine Mandate that gave it a different legal standing to pursue the repeal of the provisions of the 1939 White Paper on the basis of those so-called "eight changed articles". No other country had one of those, and it turned out the LoN mandate system was designed so that it could be used to prevent the individual members from taking any legal action on behalf of the Jewish inhabitants.

It is NOTABLE then that the United States never accepted the jurisdiction of the PCIJ, or relied upon the faulty LoN system of supervising the mandates. It had ratified the Hague Conventions, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It entered into old-fashioned bilateral treaty agreements with each mandatory to secure its interests. The US Palestine Mandate Convention contained a complete recitation of the text of the LoN mandate, plus eight amendments. One of those required that the US be furnished an annual report and another stipulated that "Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate, as recited above, unless such modifications shall have been assented to by the United States." The mandate convention survived the dissolution of the LoN, and made the United States Britain's only partner as a "state directly concerned".

For example, in 1925 the US expressed its dissatisfaction with a decision relating to the Iraq Mandate: "You will recall the exchange of communications regarding Palestine and the view which we have held consistently that this Government has a right to be consulted regarding dispositions made with respect to territories under mandate." That treaty obligation still applied in 1945, and led to Truman's demand for the immediate issuance of 100,000 immigration certificates.

The US position was not that the 1939 White Paper was unpopular. The US held that it was in violation of the mandate and our bilateral treaty agreement. See for example the conversation between U.S. Rep. Sol Bloom and Assistant Secretary of State James C. Dunn during the founding conference of the United Nations at San Francisco. Both were delegates, and they were discussing the terms of article 76 of the draft UN Charter (a treaty):

REPRESENTATIVE BLOOM referred to the last sentence of the new draft which referred to the wishes of the communities in question. COMMANDER STASSEN declared that this was quoted word for word from the League Covenant. REPRESENTATIVE BLOOM wondered whether these wishes might not be the majority wishes and pointed out that in Palestine the Arabs were in a substantial majority. He declared that according to the Treaty of 1925 no changes could be made in the mandated status of Palestine without the consent of the United States. The British White Paper was illegal according to the terms of the mandate. The Arabs, he declared, were trying to obtain something for their own protection. The Jews in Palestine were in the minority, and with immigration stopped the Arabs were trying to keep them in the same ratio. MR. DUNN agreed that this was the correct interpretation. REPRESENTATIVE BLOOM declared that the Arabs had no right to take this position according to the mandate and the treaty with the United States.

That's why the US alone entered into negotiations for a settlement that included the joint Anglo-American Commission, the Grady Morrison Plan, and the stipulations they inserted into the draft of the UN Charter with regard to the Palestine mandate. The US had a long history of going to arbitration with Great Britain if necessary in cases like The Alabama Claims, and the Alaska boundary dispute. It had supplied Great Britain with substantial amounts of aid under the Lend-Lease and there were reports from the British Foreign Office that the US had threatened to delay its relief payments under the Marshall Plan unless they would agree to negotiate with the Jewish Agency. Some of its members, like Moshe Shertok, were in jail at the time. No other country was in a position to do those things.

It was no accident, that a British Dominion, or Commonwealth, questioned legal effectiveness and validity of the mandates in a series of cases that stretched into the 1970s. In 1961, two former League of Nations member countries tried to invoke the standard compromissory clause. It provided that "any dispute whatever" arising between the Mandatory and another Member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the Mandate could be brought to the Permanent Court of International Justice for resolution.

The Court noted that the League of Nations wasn't viewed as a legal person and that it relied on member nations to fulfill its purposes. Here is their analysis:

"Under the unanimity rule (Articles 4 and 5 of the Covenant), the Council could not impose its own view on the Mandatory. It could of course ask for an advisory opinion of the Permanent Court but that opinion would not have binding force, and the Mandatory could continue to turn a deaf ear to the Council's admonitions. In such an event the only course left to defend the interests of the inhabitants in order to protect the sacred trust would be to obtain an adjudication by the Court on the matter connected with the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the Mandate. But neither the Council nor the League was entitled to appear before the Court. The only effective recourse for protection of the sacred trust would be for a Member or Members of the League to invoke Article 7 and bring the dispute as also one between them and the Mandatory to the Permanent Court for adjudication."

Notwithstanding that assessment, the court agreed with Balfour's view of things and ruled that Ethiopia and Liberia had no legal right or interest of their own in the subject matter of the claim, i.e. the way that the Union of South Africa discharged its obligations with respect to the inhabitants of the mandated territory. see South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa). The court noted that the compulsory jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Palestine Mandate, corresponded to Article 7 of the Mandate for South West Africa and cited it's Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions ruling. see South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa).

Under those circumstances I don't think that inclusion of "US Centric" material should be such big issue.harlan (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"This is an article about a legal instrument. " It's about both the territory and the legal instrument. At one time there were separate articles, and they were merged. In light of the size and complexity of the current article, it might be good to have separate articles again. There would be some overlap, but the separate articles might be more readable.John Z (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article states that "American President Woodrow Wilson protested British concessions in a cable to the Brihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Mandate_of_Palestine&action=edittish Cabinet". The only reference for this cable that I could find (except for other Wikipedia articles that use it) was from a political pamphlet by one Meir Abelson, who is not a historian of any standing. Furthermore, he does not provide a source for his quote, which makes it impossible to confirm it and consider its context (which is particularly important given the distinct political slant of his writing). I have been unable to find this quote in the 69 volumes of Arthur S. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Unless a more reliable source is provided, I would like to remove this quote. Copies of this message are posted in other Wikipedia articles where this cable is quoted with the hope of finding more information about it.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this to people who know more about editing this specific page, but based on Wiki-available dates the whole section seems to suffer from a non-chronological logic. I note specifically that it currently says 'After Sykes-Picot'.... and then discusses the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which was concluded about four months before S-P. I also note that the Balfour Declaration, 1917 is also noted before Hussein-McMahon even though it was promulgated nearly two years later. I believe an encyclopedia should employ a basic chronological logic and let historic dates determine order of presentation. Apparently some others consider different motivations preeminent. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Land Ownership section IS NOT BACKED UP BY ANY SOURCE!!! Why is it in there? Other statistics contradict the numbers there. Furthermore, their source is a dead link!

Demographics of Jerusalem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.144 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 2

IP SockPuppet has requested this image be deleted

Map created by User:Zero0000 is WP:OR see []

Mediation: clarify?

Wikiwand in your browser!

Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 2

IP SockPuppet has requested this image be deleted

Map created by User:Zero0000 is WP:OR see []

Mediation: clarify?

Wikiwand in your browser!

Map caption

Intro

Recent changes

Map

When does a mandate begin?

Request for mediation filed

The Mandate was not partitioned: Transjordan was added to it

Official name of Trans-Jordan

The map and source

Map link

Mandate FOR Palestine

The British Mandates' Flag

Rivalry (and generaly Khalidi's analysis)

'20,000' & 'involved'

Transjordan

I removed unsourced staments with old {{fact}} tags

Successor states

Title vs intro

The Arab Government of Syria and Palesine

International Law Issues

Opening Paragraph of the League of Nations Mandate

US Centric material

Wilson protest

OR problems in the World War I section

LAND OWNERSHIP SECTION SHOULD BE REMOVED-- Demographics by district is contradicted

IP SockPuppet has requested this image be deleted

Map created by User:Zero0000 is WP:OR see []

Mediation: clarify?

IP SockPuppet has requested this image be deleted

Map created by User:Zero0000 is WP:OR see []

Mediation: clarify?

Map caption

Intro

Recent changes

Map

When does a mandate begin?

Request for mediation filed

The Mandate was not partitioned: Transjordan was added to it

Official name of Trans-Jordan

The map and source

Map link

Mandate FOR Palestine

The British Mandates' Flag

Rivalry (and generaly Khalidi's analysis)

'20,000' &amp; 'involved'

Transjordan

I removed unsourced staments with old {{fact}} tags

Successor states

Title vs intro

The Arab Government of Syria and Palesine

International Law Issues

Opening Paragraph of the League of Nations Mandate

US Centric material

Wilson protest

OR problems in the World War I section

LAND OWNERSHIP SECTION SHOULD BE REMOVED-- Demographics by district is contradicted

'20,000' & 'involved'