Talk:Israel/Israel and the Occupied Territories-8

How many Jews?

My proposed changes:

 by the early 19th century, more than 10,000 Jews lived in the area that is today's Israel.

To something more accurate. I suspect that the real number is something like "slighly more than 10,000". Cutting off the "slighly" is not very accurate.

---

If you can find accurate numbers and a source, please put them in. Jayjg 03:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

How about this:

 In 1880, before the birth of modern Zionism, about 25,000 Jews lived in Palestine. Two
 thirds of them in Jerusalem.

[1], [2]

 They amounted to about 5% of the total population.

Palestine-info 15:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

5% of the total population? where are you getting your info based from?

Read the links!

"the Turkish census for 1878 listed 462,465 Turkish subjects in the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were at least 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship" 25,011 / 462,465 = 5,4%. [3]

"The Jewish population of Palestine before 1880 consisted of fewer than 25,000 people, two-thirds of whom lived in Jerusalem" [4]

And this one I found: 1870 Arabs: 367,224 (98%) Jews: 7,000 (2%) Total: 375,000 [5]

Palestine-info 07:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

the Holocaust

My proposed changes:

 and the subsequent attempted extermination of the Jewish people in the Shoah, or Holocaust.

To:

 and the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is well known enough that you dont have to mention again that it was an attempt to exterminate "the Jews of Europe". And why use the Jewish word for it when this is an English language encyclopaedia?

The attempted extermination explains motivation. Leaving out Shoah is fine. Jayjg 03:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Holocaust article makes it (to me) obvious that the attempt was to exterminate the Jews of Europe. I don't doubt that the Fürher would have loved to exterminate non-Europeians too. But the Holocaust seems to have been limited to Europeian Jewry. Besides, everyone already knows what the attempt and the motivation was. Palestine-info 07:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please re-read the sentence in context. Jayjg 07:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't make any sense. I still note that the Holocaust article does not call the Holocaust the "attempted extermination of the Jewish people". Palestine-info 20:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shoah has become an English word. [6]

several

My proposed changes:

 In 1947, following increasing levels of violence and unsuccessful efforts to reconcile 
 the Jewish and Arab populations

To:

 In 1947, following increasing levels of violence and several unsuccessful efforts to 
 reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations

Cause the British government tried many times.

Fine. Jayjg 03:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1947 UN Partition Plan

My proposed changes:

 Fulfillment of the 1947 UN Partition Plan would have divided the mandated 
 territory into two states, Jewish and Arab, giving about half the land area to 
 each state. This plan, as well as an earlier 1937 partition proposed by the 
 Peel Commission, was rejected by Arab leaders. Immediately following the 
 adoption of the Partition Plan by the United Nations General Assembly, the 
 Palestinian Arab leadership vowed to crush the as yet un-named Jewish State and 
 launched a guerilla war.

To:

 The 1947 UN Partiton Plan was put forward to divide Palestine in two states 
 of roughly equal size, one Jewish and one Arab. This plan, as well as an earlier 
 1937 partition proposed by the Peel Commission, was rejected by Arab 
 leaders. The Partition Plan was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with
 33 votes in favour, 13 votes against and 10 abstainees. Immidiately following the 
 adoption of the plan violence broke out between the Jewish and Arab populations. 
 Particularily the Jewish guerilla groups Irgun and Lehi played a vital role 
 in escalating the conflict to a state of war.

Because the previous paragraph describes Arab guerillas as the main instigators. In reality, Irgun and Lehi was the only guerillas in Palestine at the time and they actively escalated the conflict. And I think the fact that the adoption of the plan was far from unanimous is important.

I don't know why you imagine there weren't Arab guerillas; the vote numbers are excess detail. Jayjg 03:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then the whole plan is excess detail. Well yeah, it really is excess detail. The UN doesn't have a right to partition territories. General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations not legally binding. And the recommendation of the resolution is contradictory to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter - that of self-determination of peoples. [7]

So either, we remove the paragraphs describing the partition plan or we supply enough information to the reader so that he or she gets the full picture. My proposed paragraph is updated:

 In 1947, following increasing levels of violence and several
 unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the
 British government withdrew from the Palestine Mandate. The [[UN
 General Assembly]], with 33 votes in favour, 13 votes against and 10
 abstainees, adopted a plan for the future of Palestine which became
 known as the 1947 UN Partition Plan. It recommended that the
 Mandate be split in two states of roughly equal size, one Jewish and
 one Arab. This plan, as well as an earlier 1937 partition proposed
 by the Peel Commission, was rejected by Arab leaders.

 Immidiately following the adoption of the plan violence broke out
 between the Jewish and Arab populations. The Jewish guerilla groups
 Irgun and Lehi played a vital role in escalating the conflict
 to a state of war.

And if you do a body count of the casualties of the attacks before the war, then you will see that there was many more Arabs killed than Jews. Also, no single Arab group comes close to the number of attacks that Irgun and Lehi executed. So in effect, there was no Arab guerilla. That is why Lehi and Irgun should be mentioned because there were no other. Palestine-info 07:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From which source is that comparison made? Impi 21:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have forgot. :) I admit that the last senctence The Jewish guerilla groups... should be scrapped until a reliable source that emphasizes Irgun and Lehi's role can be found. However:

The commanders of the Haganah, on the other hand, advocated hard-hitting military reprisals. Ben-Gurion himself shared the latters' opinion that their best bet under the circumstances was not to contain and localize the trouble but to escalate the military conflict. Consequently, the Haganah embarked on a policy of "aggressive defense" accompanied by economic subversion and psychological warfare. (Shlaim, The Iron Wall, p.30-31)

Seem to indicate that the Zionist side should receive the lion share of the responsibility if either side should be blamed. Even if the undergrounds is not mentioned. Palestine-info 10:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That indicates that that is Shlaim's view. Jayjg 14:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestine-info: Shlaim is not known as the most objective historian around, and besides, I don't see the significance of this quote. The Haganah was a civilian-controlled defence militia, that later formed the basis for the Israel Defence Force. It cannot be compared to either Irgun or Lehi. Secondly, when war is inevitable, or in fact just beginning, you sort of expect your defence force to embark on an aggressive defence policy, including psychological warfare. That's a basic precept of armed conflict. I think the use of language such as "contain and localize the trouble" is just indicative of Shlaim's usual bias. Besides, as an aside, whilst you're flinging around statements like the Zionists are responsible for it all, can you tell me when the first Arab attack on Jews in that region occured in the 20th century? Also, can you tell me when the first Jewish attack on Arabs in the same time period occurred... Impi 07:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israel's first annexation

My proposed changes:

 Israel captured an additional 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river 
 and annexed it to the new state.

To:

 Israel captured an additional 26% of the Mandate territory and annexed it to the 
 new state. No state in the world recognized the annexation.
 

Because there is a clause about Jordan's annexation. Atleast Jordan got it from Britain and Pakistan, Israel didn't get it from anyone. Both sides should be treated equally.

Most states recognized the annexation, and still do. Jayjg 19:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that. Palestine-info 08:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

if 2 states were established in accordance to the parition-resolution, then Israel didn't have legitimacy over the rest of the mandate area. Since this is not the cast, Israel, which accepted the resolution, and was attacked by 5 states (states that existed before Israel's creation, and respected the borders of the mandate entity, and did not attack it). Israel then had the legitimacy to take over any part of the mandate. In any case, all the territories which became under Israeli control in outcome of 1948 war were recognized as fully Israeli-soverignity by all the states that recognized Israel. Anonymous, 11:00 15 Oct 2004 UTC

Zionists carried out many attacks outside the area alloted to them in the 1947 UN Partition Plan before the mandate had ceased. For example, on May 14, 1948, the Haganah conquered Jerusalem which was to become an UN supervised zone. Therefore, the argument that Israel had a "moral right" to grow its borders beoynd the 1947 plan is moot. Israel was recognized by the U.S. and Soviet Union in May 1948, shortly after its declaration of independence. That was before Israel had captured most of what was ment to become a Palestinian state. Israel's declaration didn't specify any borders at all. Palestine-info 20:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, UNSC resolutions subsequent to the creation of the State, as well as the Oslo Accords, accept the 1949 Armistice lines as legitimately being part of Israel. Jayjg 21:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In response to "Palestine-info" - stating that "Haganah conquered Jerusalem" is a twist of the facts. Haganah main role was as defensive groups in each Jewish area. To remind you, throughout the mandate period (and most especially in the period starting Nov. 29 1947 (U.N partition plan) until mandate ceasure) Palestinian Arabs sought violence against Jews. Therefore, Upon ceasure of the mandate, when a "vacum" was created - British forces were evacuated and out-of-duty. What you're referring to is probobly Haganah guarding the Jewish quarter & the Jewish neighbourhoods outside the old-city walls. -Anon 18:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gaza strip was occupied

My proposed changes:

 The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt, and came under its control.

To:

 The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, but was never formally annexed.

Since Jordan's annexation is mentioned, Israel's annexation should be mentioned and the fact that Egypt did not annex the Gaza Strip should be mentioned.

The language was a compromise, an attempt to leave controversial terms out of the article. Putting in occupied opens up a can of worms. Jayjg 03:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then that can of worms should be opened. Occupied but not annexed is entierly correct and more detailed than the previous wording. Palestine-info 08:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Occupied is an opinion, and this can of worms is best left closed. Jayjg 17:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No "Occupied" is not an opinion. See belligerent occupation and [8] which explains that:

"Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance."

that is very clear-cut. Besides, I haven't heard any authorative source disputing that Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip in 1948. I suspect that you resist because if it is written that Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip then it obviously aslo must be written that Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Palestine-info 21:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the Fourth Geneva convention to apply, there has to be a "High Contracting Party". Who is the "High Contracting Party" that legally owned the territories before Israel captured them? Jayjg 21:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)