Talk:White Paper of 1939

message: This article is very interesting. It's related to many articles around Wikipedia but I decided not to spam and to notify about it in just one place. I hope someone picks it up. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from wrong place above

message: If anyone's especially knowledgable in this area can they take a look at both Malcolm MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain#The Palestine White Paper to see if the relevant text needs modification. Timrollpickering 20:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Related pages

message: I have now reordered the text into 3 parts: what came before the White Paper of 1939, the White Paper itself, and, finally: the reaction to it. I have particulary expanded Part 2: White Paper itself. After all: that is what this article is about! -There is still work to do; in the 3.rd part it says both  that the the plans were dropped the following year...and that they brought tensions over immigration at the end of WWII (!) -need to clarify which parts were dropped  Huldra 06:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Palestinian leadership joined the Axis. Their leader, the Grand Mufti, went to Baghdad, then to Berlin. So, their reaction was likely in this context.Scott Adler 01:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Reordering, & elaborating

message: I have tightened the text up, and eliminated material either POV,  erroneous,  deriving from unreliable sources, or stating as an objective fact what is a partisan opinion. E.g.
'The White Paper of 1939, indirectly, made a major contribution to the Holocaust by severely restricting Jewish entry to Palestine. After the Second World War it resulted in violent conflict between the Zionist movement in Palestine and British Government.
The second part is also untrue, since it refers to actions that began to assume greater force after the White Paper, not after WW2 (Jewish terrorism against the Mandatory authorities), etc.Nishidani 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Since the introduction is controversial I suggest debating it before making changes.
Telaviv1 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. As the remark was placed, it was a private editorial opinion (POV), since no source was given, and thus had no place on the page.Nishidani 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The lead section says that, in the White Paper, the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine was abandoned. However, partitioning Palestine had never been the intention. What had been the intention, after the splitting off of Transjordan, was the settling of immigrant Jews in the remaining area until they outnumbered the non-Jewish population, at which point the Mandate would have been terminated and a state (with or without any ties to Britain) created. There are a lot of disagreements over what exactly had been intended by the creation of a Jewish Homeland. It is quite clear that British Government officials including Lloyd George and Balfour (and probably Churchill) and Zionists with whom they were liaising such as Weizmann (backed by Louis Brandeis in the United States) intended the creation of Jewish-controlled state, not an entity such as some kind of protectorate. The White Paper said, "His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country." Leading members of the British Government did intend the creation of a "Jewish State" and, Balfour at least, knew that it would be resisted by the existing arab population (and a significant part of the existing Jewish population) of Palestine. As the intention was to create a state, the Declaration, which was drafted (through many versions) by those around Weizmann and was approved beforehand by the governments of countries such as the United States and France, deliberately omitted to mention the national rights of the Arabs from the list of those given, though it is often assumed that these were supposed to have been covered by the mention of civil rights. According to what I have read, the phrase Jewish National Home has an interesting provenance; it was used by the Zionist leaders to reassure and gain the support of Jews who believed the creation of a Jewish state, as such, wrong and later served the same purpose among those involved in negotiating the wording of the Declaration and its later adoption by the League of Nations. It was during the time of the first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, that specific immigration quotas for Jews were imposed, because it was known that, if limitless immigration was allowed, Arabs would demand the same "right". After the Arab Revolt and its brutal suppression, it was finally accepted that it would not be possible to impose the creation of a Jewish state other than by force of arms, a step that the British were not prepared to take and the reason why the members of the inquiry carried out after the ending of the Revolt advanced the recommendations given in the White Paper that immigration of Jews be radically reduced.   -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: {from One Palestine, Complete by Tom Segev, Chapter 19, pp413} "The British dismantled the partition plan just as they had created it, with the ritual procedure of a commission of inquiry. The Woodhead Commission heard many witnesses and put together a fine book, 310 pages long, full of useful information and wise evaluations. The commission was charged to examine how it's predecessors recommendations might be carried out. Inevitably the commission reached the conclusion that partition could not be implemented because the Jews and Arabs did not want it."
Although the Government quickly abandoned the intention to partition, it can be said that the White Paper was the official announcement of that.   -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction revisited and other notes

message: "The White Paper was approved by Parliament in May 1939, a few weeks after Britain agreed to Germany annexing the rest of Czechoslavakia" The British did not "agree" to this very rapid annexation, but unfortunately they could do nothing to stop it. In fact Britain prepared for war afterwards. Is it relevant here, beyond the coincidence of dates?86.44.156.195 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: the rest of Czechoslovakia occupied in 1939

message: Here is some text I removed, with my reasons for doing so inserted in orange.
: It should be noted that some of the claims made in this section were not true. [We are not allowed to make statements like that; we are only allowed to cite reliable sources as making them.  But neither of the sources makes that statement.] Jewish migration had resulted in a major economic boom in Palestine and caused non-Jewish (Arab) migration into the country which only ended due to the Arab revolt. Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, A Survey of Palestine (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1945-46), vol. 1, p. 211. "the "boom" conditions [The quote does not identify the cause of the "boom conditions". So the source does not support the claim.] in Palestine in the years 1934-36 led to an inward movement in Palestine particularly from Syria. The depression due to the state of public disorder during 1936-39 led to the return of these people and also a substantial outward movement of Palestinian Arabs" [This agrees with the text of the WP.] Jewish migration was exclusively funded from taxation paid by the Jewish population [Did the British administration keep Jewish taxes separate from other taxes?  Who says?  Anyway, it is OR to say taxes are relevant. Our WP extract doesn't even mention taxes.], whose (ample) ["ample" is an opinion; whose?] taxes were also used to fund the British forces in Palestine and to help improve economic conditions for the Arab population. [Relevance is OR, leaving aside the obvious POV problem.] After 1945, Jewish aid made Palestine the largest single importer of dollars in the entire British Empire (outside of Britain) [Since Palestine was never in the British Empire at all, this statement is nonsense.].The Times 19/12/46 page 3 & 27/2/47 page 5. Britain’s total exports to the USA in 1947 were about three times the amount Palestine was receiving [How is this relevant to the article at all? Inclusion is OR.]): see Statistical Abstract for the Commonwealth Volume 71, London 1951 page 8.
Zerotalk 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that you are not allowed to develop your own case against the White Paper. It is a clear violation of WP:OR. Zerotalk 09:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable text 

message: * "The Arab Higher Committee argued that the independence of a future Palestine Government would prove to be illusory, as the Jews could prevent its functioning by withholding participation, and in any case real authority would still be in the hands of British officials."--This needs a source, but anyway I don't see the sense in it.  I suspect it refers to the transitional period before independence. Zerotalk 09:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the real story which is somewhat different and will insert it. Zerotalk 08:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sentences 

message: * "The White Paper was published [on Kristallnacht]" - this historical coincidence is only there to sneak in a POV.  It has to have a citation to a reliable source saying that the coincidence is significant. Zerotalk 22:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation of changes 

message: The article One Million Plan was proposed to be merged into Aliyah Bet, please discuss it at talk:Aliyah Bet#Merger.GreyShark (dibra) 16:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant RFM proposal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White Paper of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White Paper of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421094344/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1939.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1939.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The text of the first paragraph mentions the UN which did not exist in 1939.  The word meanwhile implies this happened in 1939, which is impossible.  I don't have a suggestion but the sentence should be removed, maybe adding an 'aftermath' type section where the source cited could be used. Geo8rge (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in reference to the time period 1939 to 1948, not specifically to 1939. I think it is ok. Zerotalk 07:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Meanwhile, the Mandate was referred to the United Nations."   The UN did not exist in '39 

message: The sentence: "Vociferously rejected by the Arabs, accepted as a basis for future negotiations by the Jews, the Peel Commission failed to stem the violence." Is undue editorializing: the use of "vociferously" is unneeded, particularly given that some Arabs did support the Peel initiative.
Peel was also rejected by the Jewish Conference. The claim that it was "accepted as the basis for future negotiations" is irrelevant.
The sentence should read: "The Peel Commission proposal was rejected by both the Jews and the Arabs and failed to stem the violence."
Mcdruid (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact "accepted as the basis for future negotiations" is false. See :File:ZionistCongressPeelResolution.png for the actual resolution. There is no acceptance at all there, only rejection. Unfortunately many authors misrepresent the call for negotiations as a partial acceptance, but nothing in the resolution says that. Zerotalk 11:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited in the most recent source from Peel Commission.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edit is still incorrect. The Jews unambiguously rejected the Peel proposal: "6. The Congress declares that the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable." Mcdruid (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased, incorrect sentence