Talk:Peel Commission

message: I attempted to be concise and balanced, while avoiding ahistorical reductionism. I welcome educated opinion from all sides. Thanks. --El_C 18:01, 29 Aug 2004.
* Reverted back to the original sentence structure. See my comments here for further details. Kept the Great Uprising addition though, which is both useful and important, and something I should have thought of. Thanks for that. El_C
* Those additions are useful, well done. But please heed my request as per retaining the article's first paragraph. Also, again, please cease from Americanizing the dates, as a courtesy to the original author (me! ). El_C
* Well, as soon as I posted it it was changed back to the original. I'm so confused. The additions were good in substance, but some of the the form was a bit lacking, to be honest. El_C
:Please let me try to restore a few paragraphs you inadvertently (I hope :))) removed. As for the dates, AFAIK the format is (or should be) consistent throughout WP, or be configurable via prefs. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the text into White Paper of 1939, which should have been created long ago. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Peel Commission definition 

message: The usual literally true but misleading Z------ slant. The numerically larger non-Jewish side was to receive the territorially larger but economically undesirable Negev.24.64.166.191 07:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who authored that, I find it to be a good point. Please see my latest edit. But, it wasn't a Zionist slant, I just overlooked that, I'm not sure exactly why, but I was driven by no such motive, that would be antithetical to my worldview. El_C 08:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   The Jewish side was to receive a territorially smaller portion 

message: Zero,
Please give the quote from the report that sais this. This is your OR, the report use the number 225 in a different context and sais census is not accurate and there are 125,000 jews in mixed cities. altogether this is total speculation from you to wrote what you wrote. Zeq 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa.
Here is the explanation: The partition plan had a Jewish State, an Arab State, and a Mandate area.  The urban areas mentioned (including Jerusalem and Haifa) were in the Mandate area.  The population transfer plan was to apply to the Jewish and Arab states.  It was presumed that at some time in the future the disposition of the Mandate area would be agreed by all parties but the details were left to the future (no population transfer planned yet).  Incidentally, some maps of the plan show Haifa in the Jewish State, but from section 7 of the report you can see it was in the Mandate area.  The same two numbers, 225,000 and 1,250, appear in the book of Teveth that I referenced on the page.  He calls it "an exchange in name only".  --Zero 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all your explnations. The report itself does not say what you wrote. Zeq 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "For a period" is covered by what I said.  This period was not specified, and what would happen after that period was also not specified.  "No census since 1931" is covered by the word "approximately", which I copied from the report.  The estimates were made by the very professional Palestine Department of Statistics.  Your last comment is incomprehensible.  Anyway I can cite Teveth for support.  Probably you know that he is not exactly a left-winger.  --Zero 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The population exchange, if carried out, would have involved the transfer of approximately 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 Jews. [2]" 

message: I kind of automatically started to wikify this section when I came across it. Then I started looking more closely: the whole section is a copy-and-paste from erez.israel.net or shalomjerusalem or any such site. (Many of these sites have the same text).
I definitely think that we should have a section on what led up to the report, (a "History" section, or a "pre-Peel Report"-section) but a better sourced (and more neutral) is needed.
Also: is the "Lord Peel" here related to, or perhaps same as the William Wellesley Peel, 1st Earl Peel? Does anybody know? Regards, Huldra 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq dear; it was you who added that section on 14. March ;-D ......Don´t you remember where you copied it from??  Regards, Huldra 18:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the text as it is is NPOV ? if not what need to change ? Is it not accurate ? if so what need to change ? Zeq 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea as to whether the text is accurate or not; it is not sourced. I cannot easily check. And that is my point, Zeq; we need to source it! (Also: a sentence like "Chaim Weizmann made a speech on behalf of the Jews" begs the question: When? Where?) Regards, Huldra 19:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Huldra, I added a source that describe these events. If you find other version of the events please add. If you object any of the text feel free to remove. If you find anything hat is not accurate or not NPOV please feel free to fix. Zeq 11:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ehhhhh, well, I guess a reference to the "World Zionist Organization" is better than nothing.....now at least readers know where the inf. is comming from ;-P  Zeq; if I´m going to work on this article it would be adding a lot more from the Commissions report. Much more interesting, IMO. Regards, Huldra 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History"-section 

message: Please stop reverting it to the old and incorrect map. Plan A of the Peel Commission envisioned Nazareth as an international territory, Jaffa as an Arab territory, and other things. If you have a reliable source claiming otherwise, please post it. Also a PD map should be used in either case, so if you can indeed provide the source, I will probably create one with the other boundaries. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current map places Tel-Aviv in the Arab state - that doesn't make sense at all, it wasn't what the commission recomended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.45.107 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peel Commission map 

message: I was in Nablus last summer and heard a rumour stating that the Arabs had accepted the partition and signed. Someone (either the British or Jews) then blacked out the signature and claimed the Arabs had rejected it. I realise that Arabs (and Israelis, for that matter) are keen on blaming everyone else for whatever went wrong, but could anyone who heard similar stories please let me know? I will go back this summer, and try to get some more specific information that would make this rumour falsifiable. Jacob 03:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In private talks, the moderate leader El-Nashashibi espressed agreed to consider this idea, but the major Palestinian leader, Husseini, opposed any form of partition firmly.
On a similar note, the current text: "The Arab leadership' in Palestine rejected the plan", is unclear on who are the leaders, does it refers to anyone other that the Arab Higher Committee ?--PLNR (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab signature 

message: The image isn't correct: Nazareth wasn't part of the mandate. See also: here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The lead has:
The British cabinet endorsed the Partition plan in principle, but requested more information
This is uncannily like how many sources describe the Zionist position, and the implication is that the Zionist and British Government positions were identical.
Walter Laqueur writes:
'Its main recommendations were not accepted by the British Government. . .(p.517)'; 'British official reactions were at first favourable:  the WEhite Paper accompanying the report stated that the government adopted its recommendations since partition on the general lines suggested represented the most hopeful solution of the deadlock.' (p.518)Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, Tauris Parke ed. 2003 p.639
I presume this contradiction is ironed out by the effect of Viscount Samuel's persuasive dismissal in the House of Lords of the idea of transfer ('second thoughts produced grave doubts'). The House of Commons then persuaded the government not to endorse the plan. But the reader has to connect the dots, since Laqueur is not clear. He does add of course that 'The partition scheme was contemptuously rejected by the Arabs, and sharply criticized by most Zionists'(presumably the adverb describes the stupidity of Arabs who refused to give up the whole of the Galilee, where relatively few Jews existed, in return for having 225,000 refugees on their hands)
Could you throw some light on this, to clarify whether the lead quote above is an adequate statement for the situation. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Galnoor says: "The Commission’s proposal was endorsed by the British Cabinet on 7th July 1937. However, the reception of the idea in the House of Commons was far from enthsiastic and the debate on the 21st of July 1937 was inconclusive. By the end of 1937 the British government already had second thoughts about the whole scheme proposed by the Commission. The Colonial Office continued to support it, but the opposition of the Foreign Office became more effective because the changing international situation in Europe increased the strategic importance of Palestine (E.I.) for Britain.  In January 1938 the government, headed by Chamberlain, announced the appointment of another ‘Palestine Partition Commission’ (The Woodhead Commission)."  Before the Woodhead Commission sat, the British government decided that any plan involving forced transfer would not be accepted; that was pubic information.  In his journal article, Galnoor writes that Woodhead was secretly advised to decide against partition, citing a letter in the archives.  However, in his book a few years later Galnoor appears to have had second thoughts about the interpretation of the letter and wrote instead that Woodhead was advised that rejection of partition was one of the options open to him (which wasn't entirely clear from the terms of reference). Curious about this, I asked the British archives for a copy of the letter but they wanted an extraordinary amount of money for it and I was too stingy. Zerotalk 03:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You made an unfortunate typo above. That's all I'm going to say. Also, I found this on the internet archive.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question for Zero 

message: I propose that the modern commentary in the reactions sections from Henry Laurens be removed. This 5 line commentary from a relatively unknown historian does not represent reactions better than any primary source during the period would. Furthermore credentials for dedicating such a large commentary to this historian are dubious, in the sense that there are many other better known historians ie Sir Martin Gilbert that would be more appropriate if modern commentary is needed. Otherwise, there is the possibility that opposing viewpoints will selectively pick quotes from modern historians sympathetic to their narratives. 
The only modern commentary given in the Jewish Reaction is from a UofA professor without a wikipedia page who is also relatively unknown and I propose should be removed as well. If the commentary from Henry Laurens is to be kept, then in accordance with neutrality and parity I propose that modern commentary be inserted into the Jewish Reaction section that is as sympathetic to the concerns faced by the Jews at the time, as is Henry Lauren's to the concerns of the Arabs. Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me what you mean by "modern commentary". It is is generally the practice to cite secondary sources rather than the primary sources. I agree that the "Jewish Reaction" section should cite more secondary sources instead of primary sources. But, for instance, the Jewish Reaction section does cite Benny Morris ("New Historian"), Shabtai Teveth (opposed to the "New Historians") and William Roger Louis. The criteria used is not "sympathy" with this or that group in Palestine, but whether the concerns of all groups are rendered accurately and all points of view are . For instance, Laurens is only one of the sources used in the Arab Reactions section. The last sentence, about  is also corroborated a couple of paragraphs below, citing Elie Podeh. . Morris is used for the Arab Reactions section as well. What, precisely, in the part from Laurens which is quoted, do you find wrong or undue? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Sources Under Reactions Sections 

message: The final lines of the article dealing with the Aftermath cite the Zionist reactions from the Biltmore conference of 1942 and the Arab reactions from the Bloudan conference in 1937. 
I suggest that they are either both removed, or the Zionist aftermath is replaced by a more temporally suitable reaction. The Biltmore conference was in response to the White Paper of 1939 and whose main point was in lifting the restriction of immigration into the Mandate by Jews fleeing persecution. In that sense, it is not relevant to the Peel Commission of 1937 as the White Paper was not drafted for another 2 years. Leaving only the Arab reaction would seem 1 sided, so I will remove both until this can be resolved. Eframgoldberg (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is poorly written and sourced.  The phrase "all of what was left of the Mandate of Palestine" smacks of the "Jordan is Palestine" myth and should be returned to "all of Palestine" as the great majority of sources would have it (which I will do as an intermediate edit).  MidEastWeb is not a reliable source.  The Encyclopedia article was written by Michael Fischbach, who is quite reliable, but the Bloudan conference is already adequately mentioned above in the "Arab reaction" section.  It is true that the Biltmore conference was more a reaction to the White Paper than to the Peel plan. Zerotalk 00:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peel Commission. 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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231091409/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument
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) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Peel Commission. 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/20120609143404/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358 to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805064657/http://www.scribd.com/doc/1136825/Encyclopedia-Of-The-Palestinians- to https://www.scribd.com/doc/1136825/Encyclopedia-Of-The-Palestinians-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805064657/http://www.scribd.com/doc/1136825/Encyclopedia-Of-The-Palestinians- to https://www.scribd.com/doc/1136825/Encyclopedia-Of-The-Palestinians-
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) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to Benny Morris, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann saw it 'as a stepping stone to some further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine.’ should be changed to According to Benny Morris, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann saw it "as a stepping stone to some further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine." The use of quotation marks here is inconsistent with both the rest of the article as well as the Wikipedia Manual of Style; both are single quotation marks, and the second is curly, not straight. Both should be double, straight quotation marks ("). See: MOS:QUOTEMARKS, especially MOS:STRAIGHT and MOS:DOUBLE. Thanks!
HeyArtemis (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: casualdejekyll 13:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for copy edit (quotation marks) 

message: The line about Benny Morris claiming Ben Gurion had intentions to take over all the land is placed in a very central location in the article, and people might mistake this as absolute truth even though it was never stated by him. 2001:4DF7:2:BCE3:A58E:D4E2:7EDA:5B1F (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your speculation. See 1937 Ben-Gurion letter. Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benny Morris analysis is irrelevant as it's speculation 

message: Citation 35's link is dead
Mattar, Phillip (2005), Encyclopedia of the Palestinians, Infobase Publishing, p. 104, ISBN 0-8160-5764-8, archived from the original on 5 August 2012
You can update it to the following link where the book is hosted at this time:
https://yplus.ps/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Mattar-Philip-ed.-Encyclopedia-of-the-Palestinians.pdf
Review of the material shows that the content matches the wikipedia page. Connornorvell (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not dead. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023