Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 7

message: Deleted this:  "However, the placing of the Transjordan area under the direct rule of the Emir Abdullah (who was not a Palestinian Arab), and later unilaterally granting it independence, was never approved by the League of Nations. , ".   First, the installation of Abdullah as a leader under British tutelage happened before the Palestine Mandate came into effect and even before its contents were decided by the League of Nations.  The phrase "never approved" hides the fact that it was never disapproved and is thus misleading.  In fact, the League of Nations dealt continuously with the British as mandatory for Transjordan and never attempted to change the Britain-Abdullah arrangement significantly.  This can be seen as effective approval, especially the Council's unanimous agreement in Sept 1922 that the Jewish Homeland provisions of the Mandate did not apply to Transjordan.  As for "unilaterally granting it independence", Transjordan did not become independent until 1946 and its independence was unanimously approved by the League of Nations at its last session (Apr 18, 1946).  Before that date, the coming independence of Transjordan was welcomed by the UNGA (on Feb 9, 1946) .  As for the two links, the first is good but does not support the text, and the second is an activist site of little interest.  --Zerotalk 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice an article on this from a surprising (to me) source: .  Another informed article, thanks to the Google cache is . --Zerotalk 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: About your second edit, you fail to explain why you removed my comments and thus readded unsourced material to the article. I don't see you doing the same for material that you disagree with. Sources on the Talk page have no bearing on the article. If you'd like something added, provide a legitimate source. —Aiden 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You knew that I had given sources on this page, so you could have moved them to the article if you wanted.  Stop your antisocial behavior. --Zerotalk 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add your sources to the article, Zero, not the talk page, and don't make personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some explanations 

message: :After some research, I have found the following:
:* The British did acquire the approval of the League of Nations to seperate Transjordan from the area designated as a national homeland for the Jews.
:* They DID NOT acquire consent at any time to bar any Jew from entering and settling in Transjordan, but they did this anyway. (compare  with articles 2, 6 and 15 of the original Mandate).
:* There *was* in fact a considerable Arab immigration to Palestine, which they preferred over Transjordan for some mysterious reason - probably due to the rapid economic development brought about by the Jews (, see footnotes 4 and 8).
:* "and the second is an activist site of little interest." as far as I can see it is of little interest because it does not fit your point of view. Your personal opinions and prejudices are of absolutely no "interest" here as well.
:-Sangil 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phillistines are extinct. Modern Arabs are in no way related to them. Refer to any expert in this field and you'll find that. Otherwise, very valid points and good efforts in bringing balance to the article. —Aiden 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Myths and Facts is a reliable source for Wikipedia whose author is an expert in the field and has a PhD in political science.  It's absurd to compare it to Radio Islam. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't even know who the author was, and your opinion of its reliability is just your opinion and not the result of applying Wikipedia policy. Actually Radio Islam is a very good analogue.  Maybe you can tell us some examples of pro-Israeli sources that you don't consider reliable so we can see where your limits are.  --Zerotalk 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again with a strawman argument. I did and do know who the editor is, which is why I'm defending it, and I'm doing that by applying Wikipedia policy, which you for the most part are not familiar with, and when you are, seem happy to ignore. Asking me for a list of sources I personally don't consider reliable is pointless and absurd. The policy regards people with scholarly backgrounds in relevant areas as reliable sources. If you want to make Mitchell Bard the exception, go right ahead and try, but make sure you use good sources and/or well-sourced evidence of his errors, because until you've done that, your insults of him are worthless. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some More Explanation

message: You may take notice of how UNRWA define a "refugee" - someone who have been in palestine for at least two(2) years  prior to 1948.  Why not use the standard definition of resident (which is 5 or even 10 years) ?????
*Because they know many of the so-called "Palestinian refugees of 1948/49" have emigrated into Palestine in the 1942-1947.
This is logical, the country was blooming economically (because of the zioniost activity) and more and more workers came to work there from Syria, Jordan and even Sudan and Egypt.
Zeq 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read this a few minutes ago at Daniel Pipes's web site. So, why don't you cite him as a source and describe the UNRWA definition in the article? --Uncle Ed 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed please go ahead as I never read Pipes web site. if you want I can try and find the original UNRWA def. Zeq 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel Pipes? Might as well quote Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on authoritative matters. Zeq, how can you expect me to deal with you in good faith when you say things like "so-called refugees"? What kind of hateful history denial is that? Plus, anybody with any knowledge of Arabic culture (especially back then) would know that a few years, or even a few decades, absence of people from their original tribes is not enough time for them to be forgotten by these tribes - a family who came from a tribe in Syria, for example, would not be excommunicated from their Syrian origin in only a few years - what about their aunts, uncles, cousins, etc? These people would easily have gone back to their original places of residence and not have to live in camps like the rest of the Palestinians. Therefore, it makes total sense that those Palestinians who ended up in camps were originally from Palestine and not elsewhere, because they had no place else to go. Are you actually trying to tell me that Egyptians who came to Palestine in 1942, and were expelled in 1948, had to live in a camp in Lebanon? Bullshit - they would have taken their asses back to Egypt where they belong. My next door neighbor is from a little town in Jordan, just south of Amman, but has lived in Palestine since age 16 (he's now 70), married a Palestinian and all his children were born in Jerusalem. But he is still considered Jordanian, he hold Jordanian citizenship (most Palestinians in the West Bank can not) and can still go back to his town to visit and be greeted as a family elder by the rest of his clan. And that's just one example of what is actually normal behavior in our culture (for better or worse). So let's stop this nasty talk please. Ramallite (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ramallite, I didn't say Pipes was correct, just that he is a significant source in the scholarly community. If other scholars dispute his version of history, we should quote them as well. --Uncle Ed 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Ed, it's just that any reference to the likes of Pipes (hey that rhymes) very much cheapens the material I'm dealing with. He is the main authority on how to dehumanize and delegitimize Palestinians, among others. In any case, could you please refer me to the link where Pipes is apparently talking about UNRWA? I can't find it - but it makes total sense to me that UNRWA would restrict eligibility for unlimited funding on their part. They wanted to make sure that only people living in Palestine immediately prior to the expulsions (that started to occur during the skirmishes of the 40s) would receive money. If they extended the eligibility dates, who knows how many more who lived in but left Palestine prior to 1946 would have enrolled to take benefits (free health, school, food) from UNRWA? You would want to limit that as much as possible. Ramallite (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ramallite, they did the oppostite as you calimed they did. They included aqll the newcomers  . this is why their definition is 2 years only: So that anyone that came from Egypt in 1946 and went back in 1948 is considered a "refugee" 9acording to UNRWA) Zeq 21:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just ridiculous to say that all these refugees in Lebanon and Syria are actually Egyptians and not Palestinians. Egyptians, Lebanese, Jordanians, etc would just have gone back to their homes and not have to live in camps - I'd like to see proof to the contary - and I'd like to see proof that anybody who went back to Egypt in 1948 is considered a refugee - the definition (did you read the whole thing?) is whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.  (my emphasis). Do you think people with homes in other countries would fit the definition? I think not... Ramallite (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Zero, could you please stop giving your personal opinions, because none of our opinions matter. We're only interested in what specialists in this area have published. What is your quote above supposed to show? Also, is it really a quote? "[O]utside of" is an odd mistake for a publication to make. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everything I put in quotes (here and elsewhere) is an exact quote unless otherwise specified.  This includes the "outside of", which is not perfect English but within the envelope of what English speakers say.  (My children say it, alas.)  The author (Christine M. Cervenak) may not be a native English speaker.  As for what it proves, it proves that the rule about being resident in Palestine for a particular 2 year period probably excluded more refugees than it included. --Zerotalk 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[I]t proves that the rule about being resident ... probably excluded more refugees than it included." If they were excluded, and therefore not counted, how could you know that? Do you have a source saying that explicitly? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I quoted says explicitly "were not registered as refugees by UNRWA", perhaps you missed that. --Zerotalk 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNRWA definition 

message: Cut from article:
:due mostly to the high birth-rate of Arabs and immigration of Jews
This is what "everyone knows", but is it true? 
If it's true, then it should be easy to find a quotable source, in the form of:
*A. Kwerky, historian with the Arab Demographic Project, wrote The Palestinian Arab birth rate is 3 times higher than that of Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. That's why they call this area the Fertile Crescent. (okay, I made that up, but you get the idea)
*Rush Inin, population expert with UNESCO, says that the Jewish influx was unprecedented, causing an area virtually devoid of Jews since biblical times to become "lousy with them". (okay, another fabrication)
I hope nobody's too offended at my silly examples. Try to glean the form from the fun, though: X said Y about Z. --Uncle Ed 18:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographic changes

message: I want to second what Ed wrote about about the need for sources, and for everyone to stop giving their personal opinion. We're not here to debate the issues. To the best of my knowledge, no one posting to this page has any academic qualifications in the history of the area (Palmiro and Ian, I'm not sure about you, so I apologize if you do). But even if we were all Oxford professors of mideast history, our personal opinions would still be irrelevant. Please, let's stick to A says X but B says Y. Also, please stop trashing sources just because they might support the Israeli position. It's getting too tiresome. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just noticed this request after posting a few words of my OR below. so i appologize. Yes I agree that we need to look for sources. Zeq 04:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, and thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, no more personal views

message: I just added something on current demographics based on what I could find on other wikipedia pages. Just thought I'd let you all know so that you can edit it if not correct. --Horses In The Sky 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Someone introduced a quotation and an alleged paraphrase from Schmelz, U. O. (1990) Population Characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron Regions According to Ottoman Census of 1905, in Gar G. Gilbar, (ed.), Ottoman Palestine: 1800-1914 (Leiden: Brill), pp15-67, taken from an article of Gottheil.  The effect is to make Schmelz appear like a supporter of the mass Arab immigration thesis for Ottoman times.  This is quite incorrect.  I'll treat the two statements separately.
By way of introduction, Uziel Schmelz was one of Israel's leading demographers until his death ca. 1992. If he believed in mass Arab immigration, we should take him seriously. On the other hand, Fred Gottheil is the economist who provided Joan Peters with the much-criticised population figures she used in From Time Immemorial.  The widely-cited paper of Schmelz covers the Hebron and Jerusalem kazas of Palestine, which were fairly large regions including about a quarter of the population of Palestine.  As well as Jerusalem  and Hebron cities, they covered places like Bethlehem and Ramallah and a large number of villages.
:1. "of Arabs residing in areas other than their place of birth—with most migration due to economic factors—roughly half represented previous immigration from outside Palestine itself, with roughly 43 percent originating in other areas of Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey" (supposedly from page 43 of Schmelz, but actually Gottheil's take on a table on page 42).  Gottheil's actual words are: "of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey."  Question: what percentage of all Arabs were born outside Palestine?  It is impossible to tell, because Gottheil fails to tell us what fraction of the total is "those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence".  Fortunately, Schmelz is not so sloppy.  Here, from Tables 1.5 and 1.8 of Schmelz, are the figures:  For Muslims (total population for these regions 123,500), 93.1% were born in their current locality of residence, 5.2% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 1.6% were born outside Palestine.  For Christians (total population 24,600), 93.4%, 3.0% and 3.6%, respectively.  For Jews (total population 13,300), 59.0%, 2.0% and 39.0%, respectively.  Only Ottoman citizens are included, which is why the counts of Jews (and also Christians to some extent) are lower than you might expect.  Conclusion: Schmelz's figures are not consistent with mass Arab immigration, but Gottheil concealed the information we needed in order to see that.  Finally, note that even Gottheil's "half" is out by a factor of 2, and that he assumed that the Muslims from Turkey were Arabs!
:2. "The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector." (an exact quote from p32-33 of Schmelz).  But again, there are problems.  First how populous were these "Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem"?  Schmelz doesn't say, but the total population of the whole subregions that contained them was 13,200 (Table 1.4).  Second, what does "in-migrant" mean?  Webster-Merriam: in-migrate = "to move into or come to live in a region or community especially as part of a large-scale and continuing movement of population"; Oxford: in-migrant = "One who migrates from one place to another in the same country".  These aren't identical, but in any case what it doesn't mean is to come from outside the country (that's what distinguishes "in-migrate" from "immigrate").  So this statement from Schmelz tells us nothing at all about migration into Palestine.   He also (in the next sentence) gives an additional explanation for the expansion of these villages, that Gottheil fails to quote: "Besides, some sedentarization of bedouin may have taken place".
In other words, especially in view of point 1, the study of Schmelz contradicts the mass Arab migration theory for the Ottoman period.  --Zerotalk 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, the Webster definition you've quoted is consistent with coming from outside the country, so to claim, as you've done that "what it doesn't mean is to come from outside the country" is simply wrong. But more importantly, even if we were to accept  for the sake of argument that this is what it means, the country we're talking about in this time period is the Ottoman empire, which comprised of the territories known today as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc... - so a movement from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc... into Palestine would be in-migration. In other words, your point #2 is meaningless in this context. Isarig 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like in the main article regarding "Palestine and Transjordan" (which you rudely reverted without another edit summary), you seem to be failing to read things properly. No, the country Schmelz (not we) are talking about is actually not a country, it is the Jerusalem/Hebron axis, including (as stated above) Ramallah, Bethlehem, and surrounding villages. In the data by Schmelz quoted by Zero above in part 1, "Palestine" versus "outside of Palestine" is clearly distinguished. Ramallite (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary would have been to admonish you for pushing your POV, and using personal attacks while doing so. It is equally valid for your latest contibution on this Talk page. I can read perfectly well, thank you very much, and can condescend with the best of them, so I urge you to lay off. Now, to the point you are making: "the Jerusalem/Hebron axis" is not a country. It is a region. When Schmelz talks about in-migration into that region, he is talking about movement into that region (which is actually not "the Jerusalem/Hebron axis", but rather "the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem") from outside of that region. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that "in-migartion" can only mean movement within a specific country, that does not preclude in-migration from one Wilayat of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Beirut) to another Wilayat or Sanjak (e.g. Jerusalem) of the same Empire. Isarig 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the moment you started to refer to my own POV in the edit summary - and attack it - was when you became uncivil to me. This is especially true since I have never interacted with you before. What, by the way, is my purported POV in this matter, may I ask? As for in-migrants, and especially after Schmelz does distinguish - in the very same manuscript - between 'in Palestine' and 'outside of Palestine', and also explicitly mentions 'Turkey' as a separate entity, it is very hard to fathom how in-migration would translate into coming from outside the immediate area. It is not impossible, but it would be a very far stretch indeed. In any case, such a quotation, in and of itself without clarification, is not suitable as evidence of mass Arab migration into Palestine. Your speculation of what 'in-migration' may mean, contrary to dictionary definitions, does not count. Ramallite (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a very unique notion of what being uncivil means - you apparently define it as disagreeing with you. You pushed your POV , and I called you on it, and in response you posted a personal attack written in a condesending tone. The POV you were pushing is that the time that the area East of the Jordan river was reffered to as 'Palestine' is insignificant. The speculation as to what 'in-migration' means was introduced into this discussion by Zero, and my usage of it is perfectly consistent with the (first) dictionary provided by him. What would really be very hard to fathom is how economic based in-migration would happen from every region within Palestine, yet for some strange reason would not happen from neighboring regions which are just across the river. Isarig 02:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look I apologize if you were taken aback, I just get very irritated when mention of 'my POV' appears in edit summaries - it's a pet peeve of mine but let's just let it slide. I actually wasn't pushing a POV, I was 'pulling' the POV that Transjordan was actually called 'Palestine' in the sense that a bedouin living in Karak in 1920 would refer to himself as a Palestinian - he would not. The indigenous people east of the River did not call themselves 'Palestinian' - regardless of what a foreign occupying power called the land. People seem to forget that little important fact. Ramallite (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you're correct but lets face it, in 1920, that guy wouldn't refer to himself as a Jordanian either, he would probably just think of himself as Arabic more than anything else.  The only reason why Jordan exists today as a nation is becasue it was administered as one political unit for conveinance more than anything else.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And that's exactly my point, he wouldn't have called himself (or his land) anything that we're trying to pin on him 80 years later... yet some insist on doing so. Ramallite (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gottheil versus Schmelz 

message: # The original image had vast innacuracies, such as refering to Arabia as what would later be Saudia Arabia, depicting a future border between Jordan and Saudia Arabia negotiated well after the Mandate had ended, and various other errors discussed by another editor on that image page. 
#:Which is why I modified your map instead of the older one - and I tried to improve it with the Dead Sea, the missing land below Acre, and the missing Lake Houla. Ramallite (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The territory of Transjordan was still called that before it was separated (and by the way, except for a few beduin it was mostly an empty desert). You are correct in that the entire region was called "The British Mandate of Palestine" which consisted of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan. These are all represented in my modification. Don't you think? You place the words 'Great Britain' over the map of the UK, but you don't write it in small letters inside Wales. Wales is a part of Britain, and Palestine and Transjordan were the two units of the British Mandate of Palestine - even though Transjordan quickly was given autonomy. Ramallite (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? It's there - it just got reverted, see map in the most recent 'Ramallite' version. I hope you will agree that it's more neutral (and the map is a bit more accurate). Ramallite (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevance is that the current map, where the words PALESTINE in big letters encompassing the entire Mandate area, is inaccurate and misleading. The entire entity was called 'The British Mandate of Palestine' in much the same way that the entire island is called 'The United Kingdom'. You may place 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' over Northern Ireland, but you cannot place the name 'Wales' over a map of Northern Ireland. You may place 'British Mandate of Palestine' over the map of transjordan, but cannot just put 'Palestine' there. It makes no sense. One is the name of a mandate, the other is a specific territory which happens to share the same name as the mandate. This is ridiculous. Ramallite (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your analogy is misleading. Wales and NI are distinct, mutually exclusive territories. "Palestine" and "Transjordan" are not. I am ok with your changes to the map, since it does not delineate where, exactly, the territory of "Palestine" ends, and wher 'Transjordan" begins. Isarig 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishMandate_Palestine1920.jpg. I implemented your changes and attempted to compromise on the title. —Aiden 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Aiden - I must be missing something because I don't see a difference between this and the one you did yesterday - what about mine? Here it is. Let me know. Ramallite (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This section is about Palestine at the time of the British Mandate of Palestine. And at that time, that area was called Palestine.  Isarig 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually surprised why you are surprised - do you have grandparents who are still alive? I think one thing they and my grandparents can agree on is how everything in Palestine was relatively harmonious between Arab and Jew before the British came and messed everything up with this divide and conquer thing - kind of the same thing that is happening now in Iraq with this Sunni / Shiite charade. Ramallite (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Mandate of Palestine Image 

message: Please start using the new reference method. Putting sources in brackets at the end of the sentence doesn't cut it. —Aiden 17:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources format 

message: Editorial: Population Index, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Jan., 1938), pp. 2-3 (this was a demography newsletter published by Princeton University and the Population Association of America).--Zerotalk 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Britain outlawed the slave trade in the first half of the nineteenth century, if memory serves, makes me somewhat doubtful as to whether you have got this quite straight! Palmiro | Talk 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More expert opinion 

message: http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm - see their conclusions. 
more sources:   http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V82I1P31-1.htm
Zeq 06:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral source 

message: "known to the authorities was recorded" - exactly. These are the leagl ones but we all know tha migrant workers are not recorded. They came fro work either from Syria (which was considered Palestine to be part of Syria in pre-british time so no "migrtaion records" exist or they were ilegal. Bottom line it is impossible to detrmine how many came.
What we can do is look at pople who are there today, many of them  know  were they came from: Syria, Egypt, Sudan etc... Zeq 10:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zero hit the nail on the head

message: since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are considered as beng the actual country of Palestine.
In addition, Palestine was a country and not a region. Robin Hood 1212 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A. Open your history book, there was never an independent country in this region named "Palestine". B. "Considered" (by who? Internet trools?) is not good enough, when there'll be a country named Palestine it may be optional. Psychomel@di(s)cussion 14:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the name of the country that the Jews originally immigrated to and settled in before it was named Israel?  Thanks!  --TimeDog 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we should make an article that treats Palestine as a country