Talk:1949 Armistice Agreements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed the "demographic implications" section because it is propagandistic and inaccurate. The circumstances of the refugees is stated falsely, and the part about Jordan is also false (in fact, Jordan gave citizenship to all the Palestinian residents of the West Bank or Jordan). Something could be put back, but let's aim for some NPOV.

I also added links to the armistice agreement texts.

-- zero 13:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can anybody explain why the Green Line is called the Green Line?

-- Ken Bloom

That's the color the Israel-Jordan line was drawn in the first official maps for the armistice agreements. They're out there somewhere on the web, probably at the UN. Should dig up a link and put it in the article one of these days.--John Z 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Percents and spellings[edit]

C'mon. These are mainly obvious errors, which are frankly a bit painful to read, and easy enough to check. Read the armistice agreement for Lebanon. The 70% figure is just wrong - a probable typo - and not used elsewhere in Wiki, where the correct 78% is used. The original mandate did not (necessarily) include Jordan - e.g. read the article on San Remo, with, again, references to the original document (which I provided.). (I plan to write more on this complicated and confusing issue. It is not a good idea to unnecessarily introduce such confusing issues in a not really relevant article.) I gave impeccable references for the consideration of the lines as boundaries by Israel. The negative statements here concerning the lines all date after 1967, as there were no such statements before 1967, Israel being basically happy to stay within the armistice line borders, especially at first. "Realted" is a remarkable spelling for "related", and "stayed occupied" rather peculiar English for "was occupied." So I am reverting, as I do not see why well sourced and universally-acknowledged-as-accurate statements by all sides should be replaced by unsourced confusions. --John Z 10:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


For the peace treaty offers, particularly Israel -> Jordan, Jordan -> Israel and Syria -> Israel (twice) see e.g. Shlaim's Iron Wall and Morris' Righteous Victims, among other sources. --John Z 10:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit (ingloriously) that some of the errors were mine. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the insertions were POV, others unsourced. If you have sources, put them in with footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which were POV? I honestly don't see what you are saying is POV. Some things that I gave a reference for were removed. E.g. the peace treaties - these are by now well-known, or the Israeli position on the lines after 1949. There is no original research, no novelty, no "untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas" no "novel narrative or historical interpretation" here. Everything I said is universally, across the spectrum, agreed on as the truth by all serious sources I have ever seen that treat these matters. Basically Israel and the Arabs switched positions on the 1949 armistice lines being considered as (tantamount to) borders in 1967. (Of course they maintained their positions if one is considering the new post 1967 lines). This makes perfect sense in light of their interests at the two times. What I did was remove "original research" - that Israel was unsatisfied with the Armistice lines as borders after 1949, in the way it was after 1967. This is (a) untrue and was unsupported and (b) makes very little sense. Sure, Begin was not satisfied, but he was not in power. Ben-Gurion, who most of the time had no real problem with the lines per se (as I documented) - was. Humus, being a mensch, has said he wrote some of what I changed, and not only does he appear to be satisfied, but he has left some very kind comments about me.
Of course there are additional nuances, e.g around the 1956 war, but that blew over quickly and basically solidified the Israeli and Arab positions until 67 reversed them. That, a bit more on the DMZs and reference to the tripartite declaration(s) seem to be some of the only things the article now needs.
You are right that the phrasing of the remarks about the Israeli attitude was not good and went too far, I wasn't really satisfied with it then, I hope it is better now. The general attitude I mean is exemplified e.g. in the Korean War over an armistice line, or perhaps the 73 war.
TransJordan being part of the original mandate is (a) not relevant and (b) not really true. (I also gave a reference for this - again, see San Remo Conference - I emended this article and added references to the original documents. This is a complicated and very confusing issue, which is why almost every account in the literature I've seen except among the best specialists, (e.g. Bernard Wasserstein, Leonard Stein) is not just wrong, but self-contradictory or incomprehensible. (From memory, Sachar is OK, but his maps contradict his text.) I'm still not sure about some fine points myself. Why bring up confusing, perhaps controversial items in an irrelevant article? --209.165.24.138 01:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still bring no source for the claim, and what's more, the examples do not show that they considered them to be "official borders". As for what's "relevant" or "true", the argument that Israel only got 17.5% of the mandate is used all the time, regardless of whether on not you agree with it. And the use of the term "unfortunately" is also POV. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my phrasing - I did not say they considered them as official borders, just that Israel (and the great powers, too, btw, I'll put this in later) (immediately) after 1948 tended to consider them that way, as tantamount to such, to extol their importance and the importance of the armistice agreements, and make clear that they would be happy to have them as official borders, with of course minor adjustments where they were silly as permanent borders. Do you genuinely disagree with this? It is an accepted and fairly well known fact, that no one has ever disputed afaik. Maybe we are just having a semantic dispute, I would be happy to change the phraseology again as long as the general drift is the same.
See, e.g. the books I cited. I just grabbed the first and most decisive (I thought) references on the web I could. The Sharett speech and the "Attitude of the parties on the territorial issue" aren't enough as a source? I mean, anybody who says Israel said things like the post 67 quotes (except for a short time around 56) is afaik, lying. Anything else would smack of expansionist aims and rhetoric that Israel respectively did not have and was never stupid enough to use, except in 1956.
Of course, it is true that Israel got only 17.5% of the territory under the British Mandate in the 40s - P + TJ. What is bad is "original". It's a complicated can of worms that I plan to slowly help improve on Wikipedia, and I started logically at San Remo, which I hope is enough to refute "original." Just because something is said often should not be enough for it to be in Wiki if such sources fail to use their own sources correctly, or don't source their claims at all.
I took out "unfortunately".--John Z 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have issues with a claim that is unsupported, and which your sources don't support. "Provisional boundaries" to me sounds like the exact opposite of "permanent borders", yet you claim the former implies the latter. Why don't you grab one of those handy history books you have, and quote some historian making that claim instead, then we should have no issue. Until then, I will be reverting unsourced speculation and original research as per Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for the 17.5%, it's quite clear that there was an original mandate that was considerably larger, and that Israel got 17.5% of that mandate; on this we agree. However, you think that including this fact is "complicated". Regardless, there are many sources which use this number, and excluding their POV is the opposite of the NPOV policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, what relevance do events that happened in the 20s - the drawing of the boundaries of the mandate(s) have to things, the armistice lines - that relate solely to the 1948 war? There is not the slightest question that the San Remo resolution did not necessarily include, all / or even any, of TransJordan in the mandate. So the problem here is that we do not agree. "Original" is unacceptable, and it is better to just get rid of a confusing issue in a not really relevant article, and treat it in its proper place. (If this isn't policy, it should be.) When Israel was born, Jordan had not been under the Mandate, for a couple years, further complicating writing an accurate sentence. (Which would be something like "17.5 % of the area ruled under the terms of the Palestine Mandate from March 1921 (de facto), 1924 de jure) to May 46" ) Rather more complicated than "original"
NPOV does not mean one must make inaccurate statements if they contradict (easily) available, e.g. 20th century documents. (From the NPOV page, roughly) The problem on this issue is that a lot of secondary sources confuse a confusing issue even more, and that there is political motivation ironically shared by wildly different actors - the PLO, Jordan, and some circles in Israel, to do so.
I gave a link to the text of San Remo in the San Remo article. The boundaries were acrimoniously debated there, and the parties decided to put off the matter til later, as the Resolution shows. As a matter of fact, the first provisional boundary, in June 1920, drawn for the Palestine Mandate was the Jordan River, and TransJordan was explicitly excluded. (See Bernard Wasserstein, Israelis and Palestinians ... ISBN 0300101724, p.100, or so, or the Leonard Stein book I referred to in the San Remo article, last page) I want to read a few more books this summer and look up some primary sources to get the matter completely straight so I can write very NPOV articles, but the Wasserstein book will probably still be my main source.
On the armistice line issue, my main point was that Israel went from "talking up" the lines generally (especially immediately after 49), to "talking down" after 67, and you are right that I went too far, as the earlier version had gone too far the other way. The fact that Israel did not make any territorial claim beyond them (see second source) seems pretty important to me, too, as did the sourced claim I gave for the treaty offers. Do you object to them being included? But in any case, I dropped this wording and I'm sure we can come to mutually acceptable wording. We obviously differ (reasonably) on some interpretations, and I admit I could provide additional sources for the Israeli attitude. So I made just minor changes here for now, based completely on the two MFA sources. Hope we can have an armistice here.--John Z 06:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are reasonable. I've restored one small phrase from your previous edit; let me know what you think. Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great, even better; it's worthwhile to make that clear. Thanks. --John Z 17:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article shows heavy Bias[edit]

Presently this article shows a heavy bias in the section Violations it does not show the Israeli violations or the resolutions that came out of them. Yet these were far more than the Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian violations.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to put some citations in notably

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/e7f2011e251d236105256728005b8174!OpenDocument and some to show that the Israeli complaints were not upheld in the main. although I feel that all of this should go under a separate page of Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC).Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages again[edit]

I don't think it's POV to explain where the various percentages come from, but I certainly don't agree that one could handily take Transjordania/Jordan/Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan out of the equation. The Mandate did include Jordan + present day Israel and arguably at least also the Golan Heights, and nowhere did it stipulate that a Jewish homeland had to be limited to areas west of Jordan. The truth is that the area available to Jewish settlement shrunk with each year, in violation of the original mandate. --Leifern 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of the appropriate encyclopedic context for the article. The 1947 resolution allocated about 55% of Palestine to the Jewish state and Israel was eventually established on 78% of the territory of Palestine. These figures are not disputed and appear in many standard accounts. The Balfour Declaration, 1917 only promised a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine and not the British Mandate of Palestine, which didn't exist then. The Palestine Mandate of 1922 noted that "the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" and article 25 effectively exempted what became Transjordan from the provisions of the mandate. I think you could say something like "Israel was established on 18% of the land to which Zionists aspired", but then some, including Ben Gurion, aspired to more than Palestine and Transjordan and so the figure of 18% is still somewhat arbitrary. However, I don't think you could argue that Zionist aspirations are the appropriate encyclopedic context. I also don't see a good reason for excluding the standard 78% figure. --Ian Pitchford 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Zionist aspirations" and the intentions attributed to Ben Gurion are perjorative, to say the least, and indicative of an anti-Zionist perspective. "Effectively exempted" is a weasel term, and "Palestine" had no firmer boundaries in 1917, 1922, or 1947 than it has now. The 78% number misleads a reader into thinking that Jews were involved in a land grab of "Palestine" at the expense of Arabs, which is surely one perspective; but another equally valid perspective is that of all the land the UK controlled in the original mandate, the vast majority - in terms of area - went to Arabs for their exclusive use. It is not as if Egypt or Jordan were anxious to delineate the boundaries of Palestine between 1949 and 1967. --Leifern 14:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist aspirations" is certainly the right phrase - remember we are talking about the situation before the establishment of Israel and so one could hardly refer to "Israeli aspirations". "Jewish aspirations" would be even less appropriate, given that most Jews aspired to live in places other than Palestine and that some prominent Jews (e.g., Einstein) were anti-Zionist. In any case I had a specific resolution in mind, that of the Twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich in 1937, but obviously there are plenty of examples from other Congresses. The Balfour Declaration, 1917 only refers to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home" and the Palestine Mandate document refers back to the Balfour Declaration. In 1917 the Ottoman territory of Palestine didn't include Transjordan. There are many maps of this period on the web. Ben Gurion wrote about his territorial ambitions. For him the "Land of Israel" was Palestine, Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon - this wasn't speculation on my part. As you say we are talking about different perspectives and I'm sure you'd agree that an encyclopedic article should describe them in an NPOV way, making it clear that they are perspectives and not undisputed facts. --Ian Pitchford 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Land of Israel" refers to a historical region, in Hebrew "Eretz Israel" - has nothing to do with aspirations. Your version is unmitigated propaganda. Zionist aspirations were to live in a Jewish homeland where they wouldn't be killed for being Jews. This was and obviously still is too much to ask. --Leifern 16:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the 1937 World Zionist Congress Ben Gurion argued for the acceptance of partition as a step towards securing all the "Land of Israel" or "Greater Israel". That's my point. It's just arbitrary to express the percentage of the land held by Israel in 1949 as a percentage of the British Mandate of Palestine, but it's important as one of the ideological perspectives. The existing version is propaganda because it doesn't place the figures in any perspective at all. --Ian Pitchford 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the figures need to be put into perspective, and this should possibly be a separate paragraph. It is false to lead a reader to the impression that Israel grabbed most of the available land, while it is certainly true that Israel ended up with more land than the partition plan envisioned. --Leifern 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's possible to cover all of this in relatively few words without doing injustice to either/any perspective. --Ian Pitchford 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this light, why not cite both numbers counting/excluding Transjordan? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be best as it wouldn't elevate the perspective of one community above the other. --Ian Pitchford 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Humus Sapiens (to put both numbers in), as they are equally relevent. :-) 172.138.114.72 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a lot of reworking to be made into something approaching correct. The areas under Israeli control, as set by the agreements, encompassed about 21% of the original mandatory Palestine established in 1921, and 78% of the remaining mandate following the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. Jordan was created from the Churchill white Paper of 1922 under article 25 of the British mandate. It was 17 June 1946 that the second Anglo-Jordanian treaty, on the basis of which Britain recognised the independence of Trans-Jordan under the name of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but Jordan was established in 1922 under the British tutelage and then gained independence in 1946.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is too complex to be treated here in depth. I once tried to just entirely cut it out of this not directly related article, but it has slowly crept back in. It is treated in depth in the articles British Mandate of Palestine, Transjordan and particularly Talk:British Mandate of Palestine see about a year ago. Also see some comments above on this page. There are at least 4-5 dates that could be considered the creation of Transjordan: Abdullah's autumn 1920 armed arrival there, the march 1921 Cairo conference that added Article 25 to the draft mandate and the Jerusalem Churchill-Abdullah talks, the 1922 League of Nations conferral of the mandate on Britain after the Churchill White Paper, the 1923 'independence' of Transjordan and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which is what finally clearly removed the area from Turkish sovereignty. That is why I left it at "early 20's" in order to not drive the casual reader insane and to not pick any one of these dates. Because of these complexities one should not use the words "original mandate" because according to the best sources, the original mandate, what Herbert Samuel ruled under the terms of the draft mandate according to his superiors' orders after his arrival in July 1920 did not include Transjordan. Nor did even what the Weizmann and other Zionists requested at Versailles and elsewhere include all of modern (Trans)jordan. As I noted inline, this is a confusing matter, and so many, many sources, which usually are not particularly devoted to this matter or written by specialists on this period get it wrong. I tried to write something about which everyone can agree and that includes both the big and little percentages. Cheers, John Z (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "Original mandate" try using the correct term of the "The Palestine Order of Council 1922" which duly received Royal assent and Given at Our Court at Saint James's this Fourteenth day of August, 1922, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/c7aae196f41aa055052565f50054e656!OpenDocument

shortly after the League of Nations issued the Palestine Mandated and under article 25 the territory that was to be later named Trans-Jordan was excluded from the Palestine Mandate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Trivia[edit]

During the negotiations on the island of Rhodes in January 1949, Ralph Bunche used a new method to defuse tension and arguments. He invited each of the delegates to adjourn to a nearby room and shoot pool with him. His best competitor in these matches was Moshe Dyan, smoke curling up from both their cigarettes.

After a treaty was signed and sealed, Ralph Bunche walked about the room, handing gift wrapped packages to the delegates. Moshe Dyan recalled unwrapping a ceramic plate, made by a local Rhodes pottery and bearing decoration and text to commemorate their treaty. Moshe Dyan realized that these plates had to have been ordered in advance of agreement. "Suppose we had not reached agreement, Ralph?" "I'd have busted them on your %@#&*@ heads," Bunche answered.

This material came from an interview Ralph Bunche gave to the author of a book about the Nobel Peace Prize, plus Moshe Dyan's memoirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.29.213 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange of territory Myth[edit]

Exchange of territory: According to Article 6 Israel received a territory in the area known as Wadi Ara and the Little Triangle in exchange for territory in the southern hills of Hebron.[7] In March 1949 as the Iraqi forces withdrew from Palestine and handed over their positions to the smaller Jordanian legion, 3 Israeli brigades manoeuvred into threatening positions in Operation Shin-Tav-Shin in a form of coercive diplomacy. The operation allowed Israel to renegotiate the cease fire line in the Wadi Ara area of the Northern West Bank in a secret agreement reached on 23 March 1949 and incorporated into the General Armistice Agreement. The green line was then redrawn in blue ink on the southern map to give the the impression that a movement into green line had been made.[8] The events that led to a change in the Green line was an exchange of fertile land in the Bethlehem area to Israeli control and the village of Wadi Fukin being given to Jordanian control. On 15 July when the Israeli Army expelled the population of Wadi Fukin after the village had been transferred to the Israeli-occupied area under the terms of the Armistice Agreement concluded between Israel and the Jordan Kingdom The Mixed Armistice Commission decided on 31 August, by a majority vote, that Israel had violated the Armistice Agreement by expelling villagers across the demarcation line and decided that the villagers should be allowed to return to their homes. However, when the villagers returned to Wadi Fukin under the supervision of the United Nations observers on September 6, they found most of their houses destroyed and were again compelled by the Israeli Army to return to Jordanian controled territory. The United Nations Chairman of the Mixed Commission, Colonel Garrison B. Coverdale (US), pressed for a solution of this issue to be found in the Mixed Armistice Commission, in an amicable and UN spirit. After some hesitation, this procedure was accepted and finally an agreement was reached whereby the Armistice line was changed to give back Wadi Fukin to the Jordanian authority who, in turn, agreed to transfer some uninhabited, but fertile territory south of Bethlehem to the Israelis.[9]

...Please use real events and not the myths...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Armistice with Lebanon[edit]

This line is incorrect

  • The armistice line ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) was drawn along the international border.

To reflect the agreement, it should read

This line is odd, I'm not sure what the editing author is trying to say or imply .... Palestine in 1949, did not include Israel which had been declared independent of any other entity or area.

  • Unlike the other agreements, there was no clause disclaiming this line as an international border, which was thereafter treated as it had been previously, as a de jure international border.

In order for it to reflect the agreement, it should read

  • Unlike the other agreements, there was no clause disclaiming this line as an international border, which was thereafter treated as it had been previously, as the de jure international border between Lebanon and Palestine.

However, the second line is rendered redundant by the correction to the first talknic (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, clarity does not seem to be your strong point, but the line was drawn along the international border originally determined between British Mandate Palestine and French mandate Syria/Lebanon in the 1920s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos --- I have no idea what you're trying to say. By May 14th/15th 1948 and certainly by 1949, Lebanon was not a part of Palestine. It's International borders with Palestine had already be delineated, recognized, set. On May 15th 1948, what remained of Mandate Palestine after the Arab States had been recognized and no longer a part of Palestine, Palestine was divided into two separate entities. Israel was declared as a separate independent entity, no longer a part of Palestine. The remainder was and still is called Palestine. The line was drawn as stated in the source. Not as stated in the article. I suggest the article be changed to reflect the source. Quite simple really. talknic (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little idea what you think you're talking about, but as I've told you previously, the usage of the word "Palestine" for "Arab state to be created out of the British Mandate" was not actually very common during the 1947-1949 period, and at the time the Israel-Lebanon armistice was signed, there was no Arab military control in parts of the former British mandate bordering on Lebanon. AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - The word Israel was never used for the Jewish state either. In fact Israel didn't appear at all in any UN documents until after May 15th 1948. Palestine did, countless times. Did you have point or purpose?
"created out of the British Mandate" ..Cute try ...How odd that the British were tasked under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine with the responsibility of attempting to foster the creation of a state called Palestine in which our fellows could form a Jewish homeland and become citizens of Palestine as Palestinian Jews.
Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.[2]
The rest of your 'contribution' is completely irrelevant to the issue. The statement does not reflect the source. Quite simple really. Again calling for valid objections or contributions towards rectifying that issue. talknic (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic, you're going to have to accommodate yourself to the fact that while today the word "Palestine" overwhelmingly signifies "non-Israeli Arab", that was just not the case in 1947-1949. In 1949, the leading Jewish Israeli newspaper was still the Palestine Post, etc. You seem to be trying to manipulate terminology in some anachronistic way to arrive at some murky conclusion which (whatever it turns out to be) will probably not be very well established (and "Original Research" to boot)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - Palestine overwhelmingly signifies Palestine, as it has for at least 2,000 years. Somewhat smaller as chunks have been carved off and renamed as states. The last and youngest of which was declared as being the State of Israel in accordance with UNGA 181, without reservation to any condition or delineation of territory, as the Jewish people's homeland [2]. What remains is still called Palestine, as it was on May 15th 1948.
This is reflected in every UN/UNSC resolution since May 15th 1948 and subsequently in the source. Palestine and it's people, the Palestinians, have existed longer than any 'state' on the planet, name unchanged, always under the control in part or entirely of some entity or another. Having part or all of their territory under the control of some entity or another, the last of which is Israel, has prevented the Palestinians from ever effectively declaring independence.
Noted another irrelevant comment, non contribution and veiled accusation on your part talknic (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can call me by whatever bad names you want in your snarky edit summaries, but that doesn't change the facts that your arguments seem to be based on manipulating semantics, and giving the word "Palestine" a particular meaning which was far from being its most common or usual one during the 1947-1949 period (i.e. a rather anachronistic meaning). And your "2,000 years" claim is complete nonsense -- 2,000 years ago the word ΠΑΛΑΙΣΤΙΝΗ was merely the Greek equivalent of "Philistia"; it generally meant the southern coastal plain, or area of the formerly-Philistine cities (i.e. a kind of extended Gaza strip area only). The word changed its meaning ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian rather arbitrarily changed the name of the province of "Judaea" to Palaestina for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews (as part of his brutal measures in suppressing the Second Jewish Revolt). The name "Palestine" remained in use under the Roman, Byzantine, and Arab caliphal empires (when Jund Filastin had completely different boundaries from the later British mandate), but after the Turkish invasions and crusades it was no longer the official name of any prominent province or administrative subdivision. By the 19th century, Europeans used the term "Palestine" to refer to the southern Levant or Holy Land area far more than the actual inhabitants themselves did -- in the Arabic language usage of the time, فلسطين tended to be something of a historical or antiquarian term, referring more to the memory of the glorious caliphates than to the current-day situation (except among a few Christians under European influence)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- When I call you a name it is AnonMoos...I'm guessing you chose it. "The name "Palestine" remained in use under the Roman..." that's about 2,000 years. Places had their names changed by those who controlled them. Simple.
The article does not reflect the source. That's the issue. Again quite simple.
Having seen no valid argument or valid objection against correcting the issue or objection to the source or any contribution to improving the information according to the source, I suggest it be corrected accordingly to reflect what is actually in the existing source." talknic (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving no valid response, no valid objection, noting not objection to the existing source, corrected the first point to reflect the source talknic (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and removed No More Mr Nice Guy's vandalism adding the word 'Mandate' to the Lebanon Armistice article. It does not accurately reflect the source. A) The Mandate expired May 14th 1948. B) The source in fact emphasizes that the agreement did not say Mandate Palestine talknic (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source specifically says "The only exception was the Israel-Lebanon armistice, which implied recognition of what had been the border between Mandate Palestine and Mandate Lebanon". Your interpretations are, as usual, irrelevant.
By the way you also broke the avalon link I fixed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source says there is an 'implication' because the Armistice Agreement says Lebanon and Palestine. And guess what, that is exactly what what the Armistice Agreement actually says ... Lebanon and Palestine.
Why would it say Mandate Palestine? The mandate expired May 14th 1948. Do you think no one noticed?
BTW the edit history shows your accusation to be false. talknic (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "implication" is that the border is recognized, not what the border is. You see, this is why we use secondary sources by experts. The primary source is ambiguous (which "Palestine" are they talking about?) and the secondary source explains it. In this case the "international boundary" the primary source is talking about was created between Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine, which in 1943 became the border between Lebanon and Mandate Palestine. It doesn't matter if the mandate existed anymore or not, that was the last recognized (implicitly or otherwise) international border.
You're right, you didn't break the avalon link. My mistake. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The issue is not the 'implication'. The issue is what the Armistice Agreement actually said according to the secondary source.
I responded to your WP:1RR report. Including your accusation of a possible infringement on this Article, which carries no such restriction.
Now I've seen your apology here re your accusation, I accept, here. Never the less, a false accusation was made and remains included in the WP:1RR reply. talknic (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Arab-Israeli conflict related articles are subject to 1RR, even if they don't have the template at the top of the page, as you may have seen in the template I pointed out to you on another article. I'll add the template to this page now to avoid confusion in the future.
The issue is what the secondary source says the primary source is talking about. In this case, the international boundary between Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine.
You can include the "false accusation" wherever you like. Nobody cares. Other editors will WP:AGF. You should try it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wondered why the WP:1RR notice suddenly appeared. Thx much clearer.. My apologies. There also.
As for WP:AGF. The record shows I did try it. The same record also shows assuming good faith in respect to your statements on what constitutes WP:RS would be rather naive . //"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."// Alas, in abundance. talknic (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The issue is what the secondary source says the primary source is talking about." That's your issue and the authors issue. The issue here is stated at the outset and has been corrected accordingly. talknic (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to be getting is that the author's issue (as opposed to your personal opinion) is the article's issue. See WP:V, which is a core content policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Armistice Agreements and subsequently the "Armistice Demarcation Line". The author emphasizes the fact that the Armistice Agreement says "..the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine". Which is not my personal opinion, it IS what he says and precisely what the Armistice Agreement says about the "Armistice Demarcation Line".
What ever the "border", it does not delineate the line over which the respective parties agree their armed forces will not move. Armistice Demarcation Lines do. Perhaps your argument, the source and the implication would fit in an appropriate article. Like....borders. talknic (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the armistice line follows a border. What that border is is explained to us by the secondary source. The author quotes the primary document and then explains what it means. This is what we use secondary sources for.
Again, you are misunderstanding policy and again I'm getting tired to trying to explain it to you. If another editor supports the change I wanted to make and there are no other objectors, I'll be putting it back in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your tiredness is of less interest than your now, quite suddenly needing consensus, where you didn't before. As for misunderstanding policy, I might have misunderstood some aspects, but I've not purposefully misconstrued. [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]
The primary source the author cites in respect to the Armistice Demarcation Lines does not say Mandatory Palestine. A fact that even he points out. The argument you're presenting is about borders, not Armistice Demarcation Lines. The article is the Armistice Agreements. The Armistice Agreement was agreed to. Both parties agreed to the Armistice Agreement saying, 1. "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."
Furthermore according to this secondary source [7], the armistice says in Article II -- 2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations. Negating the notion that the agreed wording of the Armistice 'implied' anything but what the two parties agreed to.
If you really want to contest that they didn't agree to the Armistice Agreements exact wording, best of luck. talknic (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody misconstrued policy, you just don't understand it and refuse to listen to anyone. I'm not sure what you think the links you provided to previous discussions prove. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy -- How about really informing the reader : The Armistice Demarcation Line, ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) according to the Agreement signed by both parties, was drawn along the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.[3] BTW The links show your own record - in your own words. talknic (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct wording would be "The Armistice Demarcation Line, ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) according to the Agreement signed by both parties, was drawn along what had been the international boundary between Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine". This according to your own source.
By the way, the diffs you provided only show that 1. you don't understand policy and 2. you are (for the 5th or 6th time now) deliberately trying to misrepresent something I said after I explained it to you not once but twice. FYI, civility is also one of wikipedia's core policies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Talknic -- Obviously the the armistice was concluded between Lebanon and Israel (not between Israel and "Palestine"), and the agreed border was the same as that fixed between the British mandates and the French mandates before WW2. I'm really not too sure what all this is supposed to be about, but after May 15, 1948, the word "Palestine" standing on its own (without additional accompanying qualificatory and explanatory wording) did not have significant specific political or legal meaning (as opposed to geographical and historical meaning). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- I guess Israel and Lebanon agreed to the wording then, seeing as they signed it. "the agreed border was the same as that fixed between the British mandates and the French mandates before WW2" In 1949 it wasn't. There was no Mandate, Lebanon's International border was set in 1943, it might have escaped your attention, but not the attention of the folk who wrote the words of the final draft or the parties who agreed to the wording and signed the agreement.
"..after May 15, 1948, the word "Palestine" standing on its own etc etc etc.." Might pay you to read every UNSC resolution from 1945. talknic (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the mandates did not still exist in 1949; however, the borders agreed between Lebanon and Israel at that time were the same as those previously agreed between the British and French mandates. If any border was fixed in 1943, it would have been the Lebanon/Syria border -- the British mandate / French mandate border was determined before that.
As for the rest, OK, look at United Nations Security Council Resolution 50 (which appears to be the first relevant resolution adopted after May, 15, 1948). It calls on a lot of groups or governments to do things or refrain from doing things in Palestine (as a geographical and historical term), but it does not call on Palestine itself to do anything. If you want to have constructive discussions which lead to real collaborative article improvement, then you'll have to doff your terminological blinkers and accept the fact that words were not always used in 1949 the same way that they were used in 1973... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- I know policy enough to know that:
1) A. a secondary source can't be definitively said to be a reliable source for a particular context unless it's been challenged and gone via WP:RSN. B. The JPost episode being classic example [[8]] that didn't pass the very basic premises of WP:RS. C. The list of reliable sources via WP:RSN includes only those sources that have been tested via WP:RSN.
2) a repeat of the assertion that one could call people terrorists, contrary to the guidelines you'd previously advocated [[9]], while twice completely misrepresenting the "activities" actually proposed, after the hasty retraction and so called 'explanation' was rather odd, especially when was clearly specified from the outset, as in the Mi5 report, "activities", yet there was repeated misrepresentation. [[10]].
3) [[11]] A. False accusation B. Misrepresenting "activities" again C. Second suggestion to call a group terrorists. [[12]]. The record is littered with similar, from demanding consensus, to ignoring it to suit yourself. Demanding explicitly what the source says [[13]], while JPost can be completely inaccurate in relation to the source it quotes. Yet you made the change without the consensus you demanded. Likewise making the change to change to "Mandate" Palestine, seems to indicate an interpretation of the guidelines so far removed from acting in good faith, it's absurd.
From the secondary source -- "The only exception was the Israel-Lebanon armistice, which implied recognition of what had been the border between Mandate Palestine and Mandate Lebanon by saying that "the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine." --- The secondary source makes two assertions in the statement. Only one is conclusively correct according to WP:RS, that being the wording of the armistice agreement.
Lebanon had it's International border in 1943. Six years before the Armistice agreement was written. Referring to Lebanon's International border after 1943 as Mandate Lebanon is speculation made after the parties agreed to the wording. As for Palestine, it didn't suddenly have a name change. Palestine was and still is the name of Palestine, it has never had a name change according to the various conditions under which it has existed. UNSC resolutions of the time didn't say 'Mandate Palestine'. So one would have to dig through all the drafts of the Lebanon Israeli Armistice agreement in order to see to see how the agreement was reached so as to draw a definitive conclusion about the other assertion, being the implications. talknic (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the things you assert you "know policy enough to know", 1)A. is incorrect (RSN is used to find a consensus of uninvolved editors, sources don't have to go through it), B. is incorrect (nobody said JPost is not a reliable source, only that a source by a historian is preferred), C. is incorrect (there is no "list of reliable sources"). 2) is incorrect (it is fine to report that someone specific called something "terrorist", it is not ok to label stuff as terrorist in the encyclopedia's neutral voice). 3) Just shows all the above amount to your not understanding policy and that you are engaging "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them" in contravention of WP:CIVIL.
To summarize, you do not understand policy correctly and refuse to listen to other editors or seek the advice of experienced editors as I have suggested to you repeatedly, and you are constantly engaging in incivility. Now that you have officially been notified of the WP:ARBPIA case, I suggest you read it carefully, specifically the final decision, before you find yourself indefinitely blocked from editing.
Back to the issue here, the source you provided explains what border the agreement is talking about. It does not "assert" the second part of the sentence, it's quoting from a primary document. It's really that simple and that obvious. I'm not sure why you want to put less clear and less specific text in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) A. Who said sources have to go through it? You're immediately misconstruing what was said. B. Who said JPost was a reliable source per WP:RS The primary source it was reporting simply did not contain the words Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It completely failed even WP:RS in that instance. C. Who wrote this "JPost is considered a reliable source...... if you do a search on the board you'll find that this issue has come up before and there is a wide consensus JP is reliable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC) "
2) Who wrote "Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist" " ..... Wikipedi says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization etc etc" It does not say activities. I used the word 'activities' because that's what the Mi5 report says and despite your numerous attempts to push it towards the British labeling an organization as terrorists, the original 'activities' stood to the end of the discussion.
WP:CIVIL There is a record of duplicity. It speaks for itself.
To the issue..Fine, it does not assert in the second part of the statement, it quotes. All the better. The assertion of an 'implication' was made after the fact that both parties agreed to the wording of the Armistice Agreement. The Armistice agreement does not say "Mandate" Palestine. talknic (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said sources have to go through RSN? You did, right in your previous post. It was your point 1)A. Who said JPost is a reliable source? WP:NEWSORG did. Your thoughts on how JPost interprets a primary source (which you don't even have access to) are irrelevant. I did indeed say JPost is considered a reliable source, which it is. Your wikilawyering regarding WP:TERRORIST is really weak. The guideline talks about "value-laden labels" and gives a few examples (one of which is an activity, but never mind), but the point is the usage of the label, as is obvious to anyone reading it in an attempt to understand policy rather than how to get around policy.
Yes, the primary document doesn't say "Mandate Palestine". A secondary source interpreting the primary document does, and secondary sources is what we use here at wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The record shows that what you 'think' was my point, wasn't, and WP:NEWSORG doesn't in fact say JPost is a reliable source. It says this. " Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis" Elsewhere in policy "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context" . You said JPost is a reliable source. I've quoted you.
"(which you don't even have access to)" You just took JPost at face value? I didn't and found it most odd that it did not quote once any of the instances of the report saying the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It simply didn't support itself by what it quoted.
The secondary sources I've given show Haj Amin al-Husseini was undoubtedly removed from the position in Oct 1937 by the authorities at the time, confirmed by the recorded words of the authorities of the time. Sources, secondary or primary, regardless of where they come from, saying he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after Oct 1937 are not reliable in that particular case/context. By their criteria Olmert is still prime minister of Israel and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister of the UK. (They could say according to 'someone', but that someone would be just as ill informed)
WP:TERRORIST The change was made with your help....
To the topic..The secondary source makes two points in the statement. Only one is conclusively correct. That being the wording of the armistice agreement, which is quoted. That is what must be reflected when talking about what the Armistice Demarcation Line followed.
In respect to the implications. If you want to add another paragraph somewhere on the 'implications' go right ahead. However, note that the source in talking about the implication says 'border'. What is quoted says 'International boundary'. Lebanon's 'International' boundary was only finally set on independence in 1943 from which time Lebanon was not a part of the Mandate. BTW Your "Lebanon and Mandate Palestine" did not accurately reflect the secondary source, which says Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine talknic (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have once again reached the point where it's pointless to continue discussing with you. You do not understand policy correctly, and despite your very limited experience in applying it, feel the need to argue endlessly with experienced editors who try to explain it to you.
Hopefully another editor will stop by and improve the article according to the source you provided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have actually reached the usual point of preventing by consensus WP:RS VERIFIABLE information from being included, leaving ambiguous misleading and statements that do not accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements referred to by the Secondary Sources used, making a total farce of Wikipedia's guidelines ... talknic (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9fb163c870bb1d6785256cef0073c89f/2fca2c68106f11ab05256bcf007bf3cb?OpenDocument
  3. ^ 1949 Lebanon / Israeli Armistice Agreement Article VThe case for Palestine: an international law perspective By John B. Quigley Page 89

TALKNIC, STOP THIS "TOUCHING"![edit]

Talknic, unfortunately your habit of "touching" talk-page sections by adding semi-meaningless perfunctory pro forma comments to them for the sole and exclusive purpose of keeping them from being moved off into the archives is really not productive or constructive. In fact, you've been warned about this habit of yours before, and it can seem quite distinctly annoying to other people. I have half a mind to move this whole section directly to the archives, regardless of whether you've "touched" it or not... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced dead links to the WP:PRIMARY documents that were originally cited.[edit]

It helps to know what you're looking for. I've replaced a heap of dead links with working links to the documents that were originally cited. I realize these are all WP:PRIMARY and should be replaced with secondary sources or re-worded per WP:PRIMARY. I've done this as a temporary measure so editors can find the relevant text within the primary docs to search for secondary sources and or reshape the content accordingly ... talknic (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1949 Armistice Agreements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1949 Armistice Agreements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1949 Armistice Agreements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2018[edit]

Please change the entry in the "Further Reading" section from this: Ben-Dror, Elad The Mediator: Ralph Bunche and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1949 (Ben Gurion Institute, 2012)

to this:

  • Ben-Dror, Elad (2016). Ralph Bunche and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mediation and the UN 1947–1949,. Routledge. ISBN 978-1138789883.

The existing entry is for the Hebrew version of the book, which was published in 2012, but it should be for the English version, which was published in 2016. Also, the ISBN no. is missing. Phillipatracy (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1949_Armistice_Agreements&oldid=1195994584"