Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 1

message: Zero0000 added "The British authorities were also paranoid about the possibility of German agents entering Palestine, though there is apparently not a single known example."
:I am not disputing this addition at all, but I am flabbergasted. I had no idea that the British had any such concerns. Also, their thinking seems illogical. Palestine wasn't that hard for an individual or three to get into; putting spies in with Jewish immigrants seems so unncessary. Since the British stopped legal Jewish immigration...wouldn't the presumed German spies simply buy a train and boat ticket on their own, and travel into the country individually? I can't imagine how the British thought that this would stop the presumed (and non-existent) German infilitration. That's crazy. As Charlton Heston said in Planet of the Apes "Its a madhouse, a madhouse!" RK 13:36, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it is important enough to put in the article but I thought it was interesting. There was some senior official in London who wrote memo after memo on it.  One reason for the paranoia was that most of the refugee boats up until Germany reversed its emigration policy (1940? 1941?) were organised with German cooperation.  By "not a single example" I meant that no German spy is known to have come to Palestine in a refugee boat.  However, they couldn't come directly either (there was a war on and nobody from an Axis country was admitted readily).  Probably over the border from Vichy Syria would have been the best shot.  I bet there were actually many such spies in Palestine as Germany was planning to invade the place. --zero 15:04, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: British and Germans

message: I have just read the League of Nations document creating the Mandate for the first time.  I did not know that the Preamble and Article 2 (Article 1 confers powers upon the Mandatory Power, Great Britain) well...the Preamble says (in part): well better to read it yourself and Article 2 says: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."  Which reads that Britain is required to create a Jewish nation home with civil and religious rights for all inhabitants.  Sounds like create a democracy, as one is understood in the West.  Goodness!  The Brits succeeded in fulfilling the Mandate in spite of themselves!  What we have now is rather wishy-washy on the central purpose of the Mandate. Should the stated purpose of the Mandate be stated explicitly on the page British Mandate of Palestine? OneVoice 23:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Mandate document and Britain's actions

message: Unfortunately, discussions among Wikipedians about how to describe the various facts, views and aspirations of the major groups -- is scattered all over this website (and is often interrupted by mean-spirited bickering).
When I first got involved in Wikipedia, I managed to "bring peace to the Middle East" (as I light-heartedly put it), but some people including me felt it was at the expense of a multiplicity of views. So I laid off for a year.
I don't have the time now that I did then, but I hope I have a clearer understanding of how to write unbiased articles.
Anyway, one very interesting 'elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about' is the idea that:
*Palestine includes Jordan (or at least, it used to)
*"a Palestinian state" for Arabs, Muslims and non-Jews generally might therefore already exist: it's called "Jordan"
*arguments that (a) "Palestinians" ought to have a homeland, but (b) they don't have one, so (c) the world ought to help them got one; might all be based on the tacit assumption that Jordan is not a Palestinian state.
Now I might be a partisan about this (check me if I'm veering into pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli, or pro-Zionist bias!!) -- but all the history I've ever looked at says that:
#Palestine got into British hands (somehow or other)
#The majority of this land, pretty much everything east of the Jordan River, turned into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or "trans-Jordan" and is today's Jordan -- you know, the country that signed a treaty with Israel a couple of years ago.
#This left the "swathe of territory in the Middle East, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, which the League of Nations entrusted to the United Kingdom to administer" in two parts: (1) Jordan, on the east of the river; plus (2) all the rest, on the west of the river
#At this point, some people started using the word "Palestine" to refer to the western portion of the entire region formerly called "Palestine"
#Many refugees found themselves statelesss, and various sides blamed various parties for this (it was the fault of the Israelis for "kicking them out of their homes"; it was the fault of Arabs for "promising them great things if they would leave their homes", etc.)
So the disposition of the British Mandate of Palestine has hinged ever after, on views of:
*who are "the Palestinians"?
*does this group (however defined) merit a sovereign homeland?
*should Jewish people also have a homeland?
*how much of the original Mandate lands will be sufficient to provide each of these groups with a homeland?
Now it seems to me (and thus I'm veering into partisanship for a moment, if I haven't been there the whole time already!) -- that Jordan was for at least some period of time intended to be the place where Mandate Arabs were to settle, and that if Jordan and the surrounding Islamic states had agreed to welcome refugees as citizens then everything would be fine. (Yep, that's a POV all right! ;-)
Am I the only one who's every thought of this? If so, it's "original research" and probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Not until I write a book about it and get it published. (Reminder to self: try Regnery).
All right, I'm out of time. But I hope I have provided food for thought. --Uncle Ed 13:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not the only one to think of that. It's a fairly popular opinion among Israelis. I first heard it more than 20 years ago. Concerning the word Palestine, I think it has generally referred mainly to the west side of the Jordan, but I'm not sure about that. (Certainly the Philistines were on the west.) EricK 19:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What they want

message: The new map of the British Mandate in the introduction is more appropriate for that section since it doesn't carry any information beyond the geography of the region. However I disagree that the British Mandate map with the Jewish settlements is in any way POV: it is a factual representation of the land owned by the Jews at the time. I've moved it to a more appropropriate section of the page that talks about the tensions between Arabs and Jews over the ownership of the land and the British resolutions targeted to ease the tensions. St33lbird 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at the map, we see that Jews are settled in several scattered areas, mainly along the coast and the Jezereel Valley. What about Arab settlement? Were there any Arabs in these areas? Was all the rest settled by Arabs? Were the Jews the dominant group in those areas labeled "Jewish settlement"? Were there Arabs in Palestine at all? The map does not tell us. It seems that the purpose of the map is to illustrate that the Jewish settlement in Palestine was concentrated in a small area. While this may be perfectly true (and so was Arab settlement, as in any country that is mostly desert), this is well demonstrated by the numbers given in this article and in 1947 UN Partition Plan. The map seems unnecessarily stressing this point in a misleading way. And clearly, describing this map as "Population distribution in 1947" is misleading.--Doron 22:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As well, the other map of the Mandate appears to directly contradict the article itself, since it shows only the cis-Jordanian portion of the mandate. Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, you know very well that after 1922 "Palestine" meant the cis-Jordanian portion for all purposes. The wording of the UN partition plan didn't even bother to make the distinguishment, even though it is an important international legal document. The borders of what one could call "Palestine" have changed drastically back and forth since antiquity, and I don't see why insisting on a particular entity that arguably existed for only a brief period. You'll notice that almost the whole article deals with the territory shown in the map, while Transjordan is hardly mentioned at all, so the map I added reflects the contents of the article as well as the political reality of the article's subject. --Doron 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The article explicitly states that the Mandate included (what is now) Jordan.  And speaking of "important international legal document" that "didn't even bother to make the distinguishment", the Mandate document itself didn't have a special name for the trans-Jordanian portion of the mandate, but rather simply said that the British could withhold the provisions of the Mandate in that area (to which it does not give a specific name).  Clearly at the time of the Mandate, Palestine included both, but by dint of 25 years of separate administration, by the time of the Partition Plan, they were considered different territories.  Since this article is about the Mandate, not the Partition Plan, it should reflect the Mandate. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The territories were treated separately since 1922, not just in 1947. You'll notice, for instance, that all report of the mandatory to the League of Nations since 1924 refer to "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" (see  under UNISPAL). The article itself states that Britain administered the western part as "Palestine". So it would be perfectly correct in this context to include that map as a map of "Palestine" (being a part of "Palestine and Trans-Jordan"). I agree that it should be made clear that the map reflects only part of the original mandate territory, and perhaps a map of the whole territory of "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" may also be useful. And more importantly - the article says nothing about Transjordan (except for how it was established) - if the article is also about Transjordan, there should be information about it.--Doron 22:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can clarify that it's only part, and find a map of the whole mandate, then I would have no objection. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that looks great. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the British Mandate with the Jewish population info. 

message: "a part of the Golan Heights" is wrong.
All of the Heights belonged to (French) Syria.
       Arno
:No. The original borders included part of the Golan Heights. In 1923 the borders were adjusted. Read the article.--Doron 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because it says so on Wikipedia doesn't make it so..:) To my knowledge the Golan was never part of the British mandate. The area which was "shifted" in 1923 is Northern Galilee ("Etzba HaGalil"). Remember Tel-Hai? That's one of the reasons for this "shift"- Jewish presence was brought by the Brits as reason for the inclusion of this area in the mandate. I promise to bring references ASAP... Sangil 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...actually it seems you are right regarding the Golan (at least according one map I found)- so I take it back. I still stand behind what I said regarding Northern Galilee though. Sangil 07:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See Golan Heights.  --Zero 09:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the Golan Heights were never part of the British Mandate. The demarcation of the border between the French and British zones was signed Feb 3, 1922 and ratified on July 23, 1923, (the day before Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne ceding sovereignty) while Britain and France didn't officially become Mandatories until Sept. 29, 1923.Javadane 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong borders? 

message: It does not seem appropriate to open the body of the article with conspiracy theories about Zionism. I suggest moving the lengthy quotations concerning British political machinations to a subordinate section, entitled something like "Factors Leading to the Mandate", which might also incorporate the discussion of contradictory promises offered to Arab and Jewish groups. — JEREMY 06:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... not a good idea to let a propagandist control the content of Wikipedia, I'd say. I find a reference to the Palmerston quote here; I'd seen a complete quote at another pro-Israeli site before. Don't think there's any doubt, among honest people knowledgeable of the situation, of its authenticity. Couldn't find, just now, the Campbell-Bannerman quote online. Jay, why don't you provide the links to the "less than scholarly" source where you found it? Marsden 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's the full Palmerston text from a Canadian Christian Zionist site:  Marsden 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This transcript of a Haaretz article (will see about verifying that) mentions the Campbell-Bannerman report, albeit as part of "the Palestinian narrative." Marsden 18:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Haaretz article seems legit. Marsden 18:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you couldn't find a source online that "you liked" for the Campbell-Bannerman quote was because they are all, as I said above, less than scholarly.  For example,   , and dozens of blogs, message board postings, etc. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If it's a real quote, then the question is, is it relevant, or is it cherrypicking?  Was a statement sent to the British ambassador in Constantinople in 1840 really relevant to the British Mandate in 1917?  It seems to be part of a "narrative" that is not really espoused by any mainstream historians, are there any that suggest this?  Or is it an "extreme minority view"? (p.s. dig regarding "propagandists" out of line and incorrect) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant. See . "Propagandist" no more out of line, and much more correct, than "revert puppet." Marsden 00:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. The anonymous IP was you.  Well, outside of this article fully half of the times you used this IP edit was for reverts, so "revert puppet" was not unwarranted for an anonymous IP that spent half its time reverting. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... how much of your time is spent reverting, Jay? Marsden 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure Opening

message: The introduction to the quotation inserted by anon IP/Marsden currently states "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 the planning for the Suez Canal."  This is highly POV, implying that the British interest in Zionism had something in common with "the Great Game" and its plans for the Suez Canal, and creating a linkage between them. Is there any evidence that British interest in Zionism had anything to do with these things, as opposed to various other causes (e.g. Christian belief)? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV intro to quote 

message: The External link http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story571.html Map of Land Ownership 1947]  states that  As of 1947, the Palestinians owned 93% of the total lands.  Everyone familiar with the subject of land tenure in the region knows this is false.  The referenced source is a mere anti-Israel propaganda outlet.  Removing link from article. Doright 23:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Land Ownership 

message: Before we get into revert wars, let's be clear what is meant by "state-owned." From what I seem to recall, the British took over vast land areas in the region that belonged to the Ottoman Empire. I am not sure if they were "crown" (e.g., owned by the Osmanli sultan, or were public lands belonging to the government. In any event, they were surrendered to the mandate following WWI and therefore went into limbo after the British abandoned the mandate. UNSCOP probably assumed that public lands would fall to the regime that governed various sections of the partition; in any event, the UNSCOP recommendations never approached anything legal.  --Leifern 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better just to say how much land was unowned or "commons." It is clearly missleadig to say that "much of the land was Jewish-owned or state owned," particularly as a riposte to "most Palestinians opposed division." Marsden 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When the state owns land, it owns land - it's not ownerless. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A mandatory government is not a state, and "owns" essentially nothing in its mandate. You're employing missleading weasel-speak. Marsden 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mandate owns the land in lieu of the state, and hands it over to the state when one is formed; I rather think it would be misleading to imply that 70% of the land was owned by Arabs.  Also, please abide by Wikipedia's civility policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And for your part, please make a better effort at abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and especially to refrain from restoring comments that you know are biased and missleading. Also, when you incorporated statistics from a particular source, please try to be sure to incorporate all the relevant statistics, and not just the ones that support your POV. Thanks. Marsden 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, as I'm sure you know, the mandatory government doesn't own anything any more than a bank owns the money you have on deposit with it. Marsden 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Opponents of the partition typically make the exact same absurd claim in reverse; that Jews owned 6%, and therefore the Arabs owned 94%. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but irrelevant. I think I will track down a statement about common ownership, though, which I'm sure I've seen. In any case, the disposition of land either unowned, government controlled, or state owned should not be presented in a way that suggests that it naturally inures to the benefit of one side or the other. It is wrong to suggest, as the 94% figure does, that anything that was not Jewish-owned was necessarily Palestinian-owned; but it is also wrong to suggest, as the sentence in question does, that because "much" (did it say "most" before?) of the land was either Jewish or state-owned, Palestinians were being unreasonable in rejecting the partition: in fact, Palestinians did apparently own more than twice as much land as Jews even in the land that became Israel. Marsden 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have to parse the arguments here, because there are two. One is about private land ownership, i.e., what land was under title by private individuals (farmers, landowners, families) or organizations (JNF, religious organizations, etc.) The other is what land was under sovereign ownership. We can not mix these two. I think we can dispense with the private land ownership issue fairly easily, except for whether it's 6, 7, or 8%, etc. On the sovereign ownership, or public lands, those who are against Israel will say that because they reject the establishment of the State of Israel, they will also reject Israeli claims to those lands that were public; conversely, those who support the establishment of the State of Israel will (necesarily) accept that the ownership of such public lands goes to the new governmental entity, i.e., Israel. --Leifern 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your bifurcation, but I think you oversimplify the matter of "sovereign owned" land. First of all, who or what was the sovereign? Before the mandate, you might say the Ottoman government, but after? The British Mandatory Government was very specifically not sovereign; they were really more like regents, holding the property for a particular purpose. Normal consideration would be that the resident population has natural sovereignty, but the Mandate purpose of creating a "Jewish home" suggests something else. And then, even having decided what we mean by "sovereign," there are generally even limits on sovereign powers that are recognized; no "crimes against humanity," e.g. Marsden 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, what you write makes sense. I'm going to try to track down a statement on that. Marsden 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "State-owned" 

message: I'm proposing that this article be merged with Palestine Mandate.  Personally, I think that this article is of much higher quality than Palestine Mandate, and I think that we should just dump the other one unless it has new info.
ApathyInternational
:I agree
:-Sangil 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, too. But please do a raw copy of the text of Palestine Mandate into this article or its talk page, first. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?

message: I've modified a passage in the article which contained some inaccuracies, namely:
*Haganah was not underground- it was "semi-legal" and often supported by the British.
*Lehi members were not hounded by the Haganah. Begin says this was because Lehi had started negotiations to merge with Haganah (which were probably only a delaying tactic). I personally have heard at least one other version- that Lehi threatened to assassinate Ben Gurion if any Lehi member was hurt (I am not sure this is true). In any case, only Irgun members were targeted.
*Haganah did not only help the British "ferret". They actively kidnapped, tortured, and killed, as well as turned over to the British, many Irgun members.
-Sangil 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting Season

message: I've revised the intro for the Chaim Weizmann quote, which purported to speak as a representation of the entire Palestinian people. Whether it should be there at all, I'm not sure: there is currently no citation, and the placing of the quote suggests a bias. It is a very strong Zionist statement, made by only one, albeit important, man, and it should not be implied that this is the intention of the Israeli people or their governmaent at any time.
Chrisbang 17:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weizmann did make this comment and it became so notorious that the British government felt obliged to mention it in the Churchill White Paper, 1922. --Ian Pitchford 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaim Weizmann Comment 

message: I once created an article Land ownership of Palestine, it was deleted. The major reason given was that it was a "fork". However, I would like to add the content to this article. The content can be accessed at User:Bless_sins/Palestine.Bless sins 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SO no one has an objection to the creation of such an article?Bless sins 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all, but it will require a lot of additional work. --Ian Pitchford 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So when is this admin going to discuss the issue and help us put this info in the article? Or atleast help decide whtehter this information belongs here or in another article or needs to be improved before bieng added.Bless sins 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think that this information truly does belong I this article. Ok, I'll take that as a green signal.Bless sins 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If we have area totals for each district [as well as the whole] we could calculate a total percentage. TewfikTalk 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Land ownership

message: Why is this article titled "British Mandate of Palestine" instead of the proper legal name "Mandate for Palestine?"[] Doright 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.-----Doright 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandate for Palestine 

message: Unless someone can explain why this article is not properly named as above, I propose changing it.  If you object, please say so now, and explain why.  Thank you,Doright 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.-----Doright 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to change name of article

message: Is there really a need for a separate Palestine Mandate article? --Coroebus 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestine Mandate 

message: I have removed this paragraph, which needs rewriting before insertion:
: The British placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in the remaining land, directly contradicting the provision of the Mandate which said "the Administration of Palestine... shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes."  A similar proposal to limit immigration in 1931 had been termed a violation of the mandate by the League of Nations, but by 1939 the League of Nations was defunct. According to the Israeli side, the British had by 1949 allotted over 8500 acres (34 km²) to Arabs, and about 4100 acres (16 km²) to Jews.
This is an argument for a particular point of view, not a dispassionate account as it should be.  Of particular note is that the quotation uses "..." to hide the caveat "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced" which formed the basis of the British case.  This is unacceptable quotation engineering.  Also, it is simply not true that the League of Nations was defunct by 1939.  The last sentence needs a source and context, and what is that 1949 doing in there?  --Zerotalk 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic paragraph 

message: I deleted "The 1922 figures may refer to both banks of the Jordan river, at least for the non-Jews."  The census report tabulates the population district by district and town by town, so it is quite clear that it does not include Transjordan.  In fact the British did not conduct any census in Transjordan until at least 1938 (and I think never, but I don't have a source on that handy).  Their annual reports contain a few estimates: For example, the 1924 report says, "the figure is thought to be in the neighbourhood of 200,000, of whom some 10,000 are Circassians and Chechen; there are about 15,000 Christians and the remainder, in the main, are Moslem Arabs."  The 1935 report says that there had still been no census
but that the population was probably in the range 300,000-320,000 of which all but about 30,000 were Sunni Moslems.  This info should go somewhere but maybe not this article. --Zerotalk 14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transjordan population 

message: There is a quotation from Lord Palmerston (1840) early on in the article, but no connection is made between it and the topic of the article.  I propose to delete it.  Anyone like to argue otherwise?  --Zerotalk 09:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the connection is quite explicit - it shows the early British interest in the zionist cause as explained. Amoruso 14:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not an article about Zionism.  No connection is shown to the Mandate for Palestine.  ---Zerotalk 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's background for the mandate as explained in section. you also seemed to have blanked out another quote. Anyway, if you feel the quote is undue weight, I've removed it. Cheers. Amoruso 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Palmerston quotation 

message: I removed the reference to this statistic since the linked page referred only to land ownership in the Israeli partition rather than the overall Mandate of Palestine. 128.232.240.178 23:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab land ownership significantly less than 50%?

message: How could the United Kingdom issue the Balfour Declaration in 1917 if it was granted control of Palestine "by the Versailles Peace Conference which established the League of Nations in 1919" Either the grammar is ambiguous or this is anachronistic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.88 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. Britain issued that statement before gaining full control of Palestine. It's just like the allies decided on the fate of Germany in WW2 before conquering it, in several meeting throughout 1942-1945. okedem 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism? 

message: How do 800 Jews fit in a "rickety boat"?  You Zionists gotta stop this hyperbole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.88 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on . . .