Talk:Mandate for Palestine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead

I just have one quibble with the lead. The statement With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz in present-day Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915.[2] is not correct. A more accurate reflection of the facts would be that in on September 16 1922 the league of nations gave its consent to the administrative separation of Transjordan and Palestine that had de-facto always existed. The league of nations were rubber stamping the decisions that had already been made and enacted by the British and Abdullah. For sources on this see my userpage. Dlv999 (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - good point. I'll come up with a redraft. I am keen to stay away from words like autonomous and separation, because they give the wrong impression. How about: "The mandate document formalised the creation of two distinct British protectorates - Palestine and Transjordan". Oncenawhile (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Under the terms of the mandate document the creation of two distinct British protectorates was formalized. Palestine, subject to the national home for Jewish people provisions, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi -autonomously under the rule of the Hashemite family, exempt from the national for Jewish people provisions." Dlv999 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, initially the borders were vague, "it was later discovered that" the British Mandate applied to lands east of the Jordan River, (after Emir Abdullah strolled through them with his army and met with British diplomat Kirkbride) see Alec Kirkbride's "A Crackle of Thorns". Neotarf (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that the lead text also includes an error about the Palestine Mandate becoming a Trusteeship Territory. The UNGA Resolution 181 called for the Trusteeship Council to have some responsibility over the Palestine as it transitioned into an Arab and Jewish State, but we all know this never occured as the Jews declared their state and no Arab state was created in the West Bank, Gaza or any part of Palestine. President Truman suggested during the 1948 War that Palestine become a Trusteeship Territory rather than follow the Partition Plan, due to the violence and unresolved disagreements, but this never occured. Chapter 12, Articles 77 through 80 of the UN Charteer deal with all former Mandates that were converted into Trusteeship Territories with Trusteeship Agreements, and the rights of such Trust Territories under the authority of the UN, but Palestine was never put into such a trust.

"The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology". Compiled by Raymond H. Geselbracht from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport, Connecticut, 1997) by Michael T. Benson. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Retrieved 3 August 2014.

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

-- Oscardoggy (contribs) 18:12, 22 May 2017.

Chart at bottom

Unless someone can explain the "Independence announcement", or why this chart differs from the earlier statement that "The subsequent two mandates were administrated under one single British Foreign Office High Commissioner which does not prejudice or vacate the international principle whereof official League of Nations documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates", this chart is wrong as written. Scott Illini (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all in the article:

(1) Transfer of authority to an Arab government took place gradually in Transjordan, starting with Abdullah's appointment as Emir of Transjordan on 1 April 1921, and the formation of his first government on 11 April 1921.[60] The independent administration was recognised in a statement made in Amman on 25 April 1923: "Subject to the approval of the League of Nations, His Britannic Majesty will recognize the existence of an independent Government in Trans-jordan under the rule of His Highness the Amir Abdullah, provided that such Government is constitutional and places His Britannic Majesty in a position to fulfil his international obligations in respect of the territory by means of an Agreement to be concluded with His Highness"[61][62]

(2) On August 7, 1920, Herbert Samuel, the recently appointed high commissioner in Palestine, cabled London requesting permission to include Trans-Jordan directly under his administrative control, thereby allowing him to take the necessary steps to restore order in the territory. This would eliminate the threat of a French attempt to control the region from Damascus. London, however, troubled by a declining economy at home and seeking ways to reduce military expenditures, was unwilling to commit any significant resources to an area that it considered to be of only marginal value. Curzon therefore rejected Samuel’s appeal and proposed instead that a few political officers be sent to “such places as Salt and Kerak, provided that no military escorts are necessary to ensure their safety…. The duties of these officers should be confined to encouraging local self-government and to giving such advice as is asked for by the people…. There must be no question of setting up any British Administration in that area and The High Commissioner had ... only been in office a few days when Emir Faisal ... had to flee his kingdom" and "The departure of Faisal and the breaking up of the Emirate of Syria left the territory on the east side of Jordan in a puzzling state of detachment. It was for a time no-man's-land. In the Ottoman regime the territory was attached to the Vilayet of Damascus; under the Military Administration it had been treated a part of the eastern occupied territory which was governed from Damascus; but it was now impossible that that subordination should continue, and its natural attachment was with Palestine. The territory was, indeed, included in the Mandated territory of Palestine, but difficult issues were involved as to application there of the clauses of the Mandate concerning the jewish National Home. The undertakings given to the Arabs as to the autonomous Arab region included the territory. Lastly, His Majesty's Government were unwilling to embark on any definite commitment, and vetoed any entry into the territory by the troops. The Arabs were therefore left to work out their destiny

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is your point? Unless I misunderstand (in which case you should forgive me) I hope this is not some lame attempt to incite passions and start a fight or an edit war! Sonarclawz (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Scott please could you self revert your second attempt here. It is absolutely wrong and you have no source for it. There was a whole British administration behind the Emir of Transjordan, but it was NOT the "Palestine" administration. Please could you read the article more thoroughly before you try any more changes. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please square this with "The subsequent two mandates were administrated under one single British Foreign Office High Commissioner". And the previous "Independence announcement" sounds like the political independence of Transjordan, which it most certainly did not achieve on that date. You are welcome to remove all this commissioner and independence stuff entirely, but leaving it in the previous form is confusing at best and misleading at worst.Scott Illini (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you have quoted from the article lacks a citation, so you're essentially relying on circular sourcing of unverified content. Aside from that you have been reverted, so the next step is to gain consensus before making another change. I would ask you to self revert and let's discuss the issue here before making changes. Dlv999 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting myself from Talk:Transjordan: The High Commissioner for Palestine was also the High Commissioner for Transjordan; I think this arrangement lasted until 1946. This doesn't contradict the claim that Transjordan wasn't administered from Jerusalem, but it does allow for some confusion. The Peel Commission report (p60) put it like this:"The British High Commissioner for Palestine retained such ultimate powers as the continuance of the Mandate with its international obligations implied; but the function of the British Resident at Amman and his handful of British subordinates was to advise, not to govern, and the departments of the administration were headed by the Amir’s Arab ministers and staffed almost entirely by the Amir’s Arab officials." Under the terms of the Mandate, Transjordan needed a High Commissioner while it was under Mandate, but during this period Britain allowed an increasing amount of autonomy until full independence in 1946. Zero^talk 13:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) → Mandate for Palestine – The term "British" is ambiguous, since you could call it a League of Nations mandate for Britain. The parenthesis is not needed, since the proposed title is clear that the article is about the mandate and not about Palestine. The simpler title goes better with the image and the hatnote provides clarification for any confused readers. Srnec (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. The phrase "British Mandate for Palestine" is the closest there is to an official title of the document. For example, this is the title that appeared on it when it was gazetted in the League of Nations Official Journal (Aug 22, 1922, p1007). It is also a very common phrase used for it in serious literature. Incidentally I don't have anything against "Mandate for Palestine", I just think the move is unnecessary. However the "(legal instrument)" or similar is essential in order to distinguish this article from the one about the place (currently Mandatory Palestine). Otherwise the purpose of this article will soon be defeated. Zero^talk 23:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Zero + there's some ambiguity when sources use "British Mandate for Palestine" and the "(legal instrument)" part makes sure readers know exactly what the article is talking about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shuki (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not find the term "British Mandate for Palestine" ambiguous, so I do not really see the justification for the change. I would also like to keep the parenthesis given the history of the two related articles and the efforts to get to this stage where we have two clearly defined and differentiated articles, with no room for doubt among readers or editors. Dlv999 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is often referred to as "the British Mandate" in historical works (on both sides of the river). A few quick searches in Google books will confirm that. Neotarf (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Both the exisiting and propsoed titles are unsatisfactory. The article is not just about a legal document, but about the establishment of the British mandate. British Mandate for Palestine (which redirects here) or Establishment of Mandatory Palestine might be more suitable. The article has a suitable hatnote to Mandatory Palestine, so that no real dab issue arises with the former. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• The title should be the same as the name of the document it is about, either "League of Nations Mandate for Palestine" or "Mandate for Palestine (League of Nations agreement)". I used "agreement" to disambiguate because the language of the document says the parties "agree". Neotarf (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be ok with Mandate for Palestine (League of Nations instrument). I understand Zero's point re "British", but in my view it is not necessary as there was only one Mandate for Palestine. I strongly agree with all the comments above that the parentheses are critical to avoid the confusion that we have seen in tthe past here. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Now that I look at the article again, the whole thing is quite confusing. The RM I think is saying the article is about the League of Nations document or perhaps the League of Nations declaration, yet the article talks about both the document and the political entity that later became Palestine. In addition, there is another article called "Mandatory Palestine" (as if there were an optional Palestine somewhere), that is about the political entity administered by the British, or perhaps the government itself (mandate in this context means something like "administration" or "regime"). The titling of all these articles should be considered together. Neotarf (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment there is a lot of left-over stuff from previous partitions of the subject area and more work is required to straighten it all out. This article is about the legal agreement about Palestine that involved the League of Nations and Great Britain. It should only discuss things peripheral to that when they are necessary to establish context. Zero^talk 00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the title should be the same as the document. What would be the parent article then? I'd like to follow whatever anyone is working on and try to get familiar with it. Neotarf (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The title is the name of the document already. Of the various official publications of it, I have only ever seen "Mandate for Palestine" and "British Mandate for Palestine". Zero^talk 01:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed paragraph

I have removed a paragraph from the article, as it was unclear how it related to the surrounding text as it began in the middle of a sentence: "the Suez Canal, besides other strategic interests of the allies. The conquest of Palestine was thus part of an articulated strategy by Britain's military and political leadership aimed at establishing a land bridge between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. This would enable rapid deployment of troops to the Gulf, then the forward line of defence for British interests in India, and protect against invasion from the north by Russia. A land bridge was also an alternative to the Suez Canal. http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Educational+Resources/More+Educational+Resources/Azure/9/9-porat.html.htm Tom Segev's New Mandate, Yehoshua Porath" I am leaving this here so that someone with more time and knowledge can decide what to do with it. --Khajidha (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks. Seems an IP accidentally screwed it up. I'll fix. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Section "League of Nations ratification"

First, the title is wrong since ratification is something done by a party to a treaty. This section claims that the coming into effect of the Mandate had something to do with the ratification by Turkey of the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as I can see, we have no source for that claim. The minutes of the League of Nations council, both when the Mandate was approved and when it came into effect, do not mention the Treaty of Lausanne at all. They only mention a bilateral issue between France and Italy. Are there other sources? I'll wait a little before rewriting it. Zero^talk 02:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I would like to see independent verification that Turkey ratified the Treaty of Lausanne on Sep 28, 1923. It was only ratified by Britain on 16 July 1924 or a few days before [1]. If Turkey's lack of ratification held up the Mandate, why didn't Britain's? Zero^talk 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Times reported on Aug 24, 1923 (page 8) that the Turkish assembly in Angora (Ankara) had ratified the Treaty of Lausanne on Aug 23 by 215 votes out of 235. This does not absolutely disprove the Sep 28 date, since there can be a delay between the decision of the assembly and the official notification of it. Zero^talk 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, thanks for reviewing. I changed ratification to approval re your first point. Re 28 September, I added the cross ref to Rifkind (source 67) so you can see where this date came from. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Re your underlying question, here's another couple of sources:

• "The final draft was presented to the British Parliament in August 1921, the Palestine Mandate was approved by the League of Nations in July 1922, and finally on 28 September 1923 it was ratified under the Treaty of Lausanne." The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy, 1920-1929, Barbara Jean Smith, Syracuse University Press, 1993
• "It was formally approved by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, but did not come legally into force until after the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne on 28 September 1923." The seat of Pilate; an account of the Palestine Mandate, John Marlowe, Cresset Press, 1959

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

These are interesting but insufficient. Neither of them says that the coming into force of the Mandate was waiting for Turkish ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne. The first one is also wrong about "final draft", in fact it was changed later before the LofN approved it. The second one shows a temporal and not a casual connection. Neither of these trump the LofN's own description which says very plainly that the Mandate would come into effect when the dispute between France and Italy was resolved; no other conditions. On the other hand, there is a way to reconcile all of this, namely if the dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification. If that is so, both these versions make sense. However I don't have any source which says that, can you find one? The LofN journal mentions the dispute between Italy and France repeatedly but never actually spells out what it was. Zero^talk 22:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that these sources do not say why, but they do corroborate the point. As secondary sources they are better than the LoN statement, which I believe has been mis-interpreted in the previous version of the article. I'll look around to see if I can fine any more fulsome explanations. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the reason for the 29 September other than in those sources above. However, i have seen dozens of sources which confirm that the Treaty of Lausanne was the key reason for waiting until late 1923. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, this agrees with The Times that Turkey ratified the Treaty of Lausanne on Aug 23, not Sep 28. Zero^talk 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A secondary source that just mentions the question in passing is not enough to disprove the official version of events. In particular, a secondary source that doesn't even mention the dispute between Italy and France is obviously not good enough. The best would be a secondary source that explains everything in detail, and I'm sure such a source must exist so we just need to find one. At the moment, the LofN's official version is the best supported. Meanwhile, here is a secondary source that supports the LofN version. It also notes the legal importance of the Treaty of Lausanne but as a separate issue from the Mandate "promulgation". Also note that it says "ratification", not "Turkish ratification" — ratification by the Great Powers was also required before the treaty would come into effect and that didn't happen until 1924. The author (Bentwich) was the Attorney-General of Palestine:

"The international position of the Palestine Government is not yet, however, completely regularized. The Council of the League of Nations, at its meeting in July, approved indeed the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, but directed that the Mandate should not come into operation until an agreement had been reached between France and Italy in regard to certain questions raised by Italy about the French Mandate for Syria. The position therefore is still somewhat anomalous, because, owing to the delay in the ratification of the Treaty with Turkey and the promulgation of the Mandate, the question of sovereignty is still suspended." [2]

Zero^talk 00:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I found about 6 articles in law journals that support the LofN documents (list on request), and I also found a longer description of the issues in the LofN Official Journal (Aug 1922, pp798ff). The best self-contained summary I found is in Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations (1920, reprinted 1968), p57. Wright was a Professor of International Law who is recognized as a pre-eminent expert on the mandate system, and this book is a standard text (as his article says).

"The United States approved the French draft of the Syrian mandate in July, 1922, but Italy objected to its confirmation, as also that of Palestine, until title was cleared through ratification of a peace treaty with Turkey [*]. Apparently she also objected because the failure of the treaty of Sèvres had deprived her of the spheres of interest which she had been accorded in compensation for her approval of the French and British spheres by the agreement of August 10, 1920, dependent on that treaty. Italy apparently wished a renewal of the assurances with regard to economic, educational and missionary privileges in Syria and Palestine which she had renounced in the sphere of interest agreement. Great Britain had already given assurances to Italy with regard to Palestine, and during the council meeting in July, 1922, Italy and France began negotiations with the result that the Syrian and Palestine mandates were confirmed with assurances that Catholic and Moslem interests in Palestine would be protected, on July 24, to go into effect when the Franco-Italian agreement was announced. This announcement was made on September 29, 1923." [*] Wright here refers to the minutes of the LofN council, where the Italian rep said "the future of these mandates should be bound up with the fate of the Treaty of Sèvres".

From this we can see that a treaty with Turkey was relevant to the delay, but only via Italy's concern with that issue. The other powers were happy to continue without waiting. It is quite plausible that Italy's eventual agreement with France in Sep 1923 was prompted by Turkey's ratification of the Treaty of Sèvres, but Wright does not make that connection and none of the articles I found in law journals make that connection either. So I don't think we should. Zero^talk 11:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, this is great. Is there any additional text you can bring from the source to support your use of the word "only", as the text above describes this as being an issue, not the only issue. On a related point, I think it would be inappropriate to remove reference to the treaty of Lausanne when so many secondary sources refer to it when explaining the delay to 29 Sept 23. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen any source that mentions the Italy-France dispute and also says that Turkish ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne had anything to do with it. The original source (which all the specialist sources refer to, namely the LoN council meetings) states the reason for the delay very clearly and all the specialist sources (sources written by scholars of the mandate system) as well as contemporary sources (such as the Times newspaper), also the British government (see British and Foreign State Papers, 1923, p913), report exactly the same thing. So I don't think there is any reason to doubt it. The repeated use of the word "automatically" in the record proves that there was no other condition:

On July 22nd (private meeting), "The Council decided that the mandate for Palestine was approved with the revised text of Article 14, and that the mandate for Syria would come automatically into force as soon as the negotiations between the French and Italian Governments had resulted in a final agreement. It was further understood that the two mandates should, come into force simultaneously." This decision was announced by the president of the council at the public meeting on the next day, in these exact words: "In view of the declarations which have just been made, and of the agreement reached by all the Members of the Council, the articles of the mandates for Palestine and Syria are approved. The mandates will enter into force automatically and at the same time, as soon as the Governments of France and Italy have notified the President of the Council of the League of Nations that they have reached an agreement on certain particular points in regard to the latter of these mandates." (The word "automatically" is important, it shows there were no other requirements, not even a vote. Also reported in The Times, July 25, p9.) On Sep 29 1923 (private meeting), the following occurred: "M. SALANDRA [Italy] stated, on behalf of his Government, that a complete agreement had been reached between the Governments of France and Italy on the subject of the mandate for Syria. There was therefore nothing to prevent the immediate entry into force of the mandate for Palestine. M. HANOTAUX [France], on behalf of his Government, confirmed M. Salandra's statement and pointed out that, in view of this agreement, the Council's resolution of July 24th, 1922 would come into operation and the mandates for Palestine and Syria would enter into force automatically and at the same time. Sir Rennell RODD expressed his satisfaction that this question had been finally settled. The Council noted that, in view of the agreement between the Governments of France and Italy in respect of the mandate for Syria, the mandates for Palestine and Syria would now enter into force automatically and at the same time." (Also reported in The Times, Oct 1, p11.)

All the specialist sources, such as Wright, cite this without disagreement and some even quote it. I don't see any room for a different story. Zero^talk 10:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, thanks for the journal pages - was very interesting. The great powers didn't seem to be too interested in the fate of the people or territories they were discussing - just preoccupied with their own access rights. Anyway, the additional context those pages have brought, including the repeated use of the word "automatically" prove your point. And rereading the Quincy Wright quote in this context, it is now much clearer what actually happened. There is still a gap though - it's not clear why it would have needed more than a year for France and Italy to come to the same agreement that the UK and Italy reached - a gap of this length is unlikely to be driven by legalistic debates.

FWIW, my best guess is that Mussolini's coming to power in Oct 1922 was the key factor. Italy was shortly thereafter heavily involved in negotiating at the Conference of Lausanne (see some colour here re Italy's early will to discuss the mandates on p13 and here regarding Mussolini's early opposition to the mandates). Turkish ratification of the Treaty of Laussane on Thursday Aug 23rd (you mentioned the other powers' ratification being later, but Turkey's ratification could well have been the relevant one for the mandates since they had then given up sovereignty over the region) was then followed immediately by the beginning of the Corfu incident on the following Monday.

Unfortunately I have not been able to find a source which joins the dots. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is confirmation of the date of Turkish ratification: "In a letter in reply dated September 8th, 1923, the Turkish Charge d'Affaires in Berne stated that the Turkish National Assembly had ratified the Treaty of Peace of Lausanne on August 23rd, 1923.." L of N, OJ 4 (1923) 1467. Zero^talk 07:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK that seems pretty clear - in other words we are saying that the secondary sources above are simply wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.... Thanks as always for your excellent research. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem: In the LoN document there is no call for ratification to be lodged with the LoN. There is no record of ratification by any LoN Members in the LoN records. The Turkish ratification is an agreement amongst Turks that the Mandate for Palestine was acceptable talknic (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so. You can find sources on the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in that article and you can read the treaty itself (Article 143) about the need for its ratification. Zero^talk 09:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Dodgy link in my notes to the Mandate talknic (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The name and lede opening are ridiculous

//The British Mandate for Palestine, officially simply the Mandate for Palestine//
If it is officially "the Mandate for Palestine" Why call the article "British Mandate for Palestine"?? Why have a picture of a document that does not say "British Mandate for Palestine"? Why torture readers by making them go back and forth?
There should be one article, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, with sections such as Legal Instrument talknic (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Re - Zero's revert. Best we get the official title in the picture changed. This has become a convoluted mess, readers are being made to jump through unnecessary hoops. The only mention of an "instrument" in the Mandate for Palestine is for the Mandate for Palestine itself "The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Members of the League.".

As above, there ought be one article because there is only one document, the "Mandate for Palestine". A sub section can deal with the 'legal instrument' talknic (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is in the archives of the League of Nations, but I do know that the copy published by the League of Nations in its Official Journal has the heading "BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE" (August 1922, Annex 391, page 1007). The document in the image is a British document and since it explicitly states that the official version is the League of Nations version the title it uses is less significant. I don't actually care much if the word "British" appears in the title of this article, but I do object to claims being made about the "official name" of the document without a very good source and contrary to the evidence. Zero^talk 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero -- The image on this page says "presented to UK Parliament in December 1922, prior to it coming in to force in 1923". Later than the August date. BTW ?? [3] talknic (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero -- Further to the British thing. "The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to all Members of the League." Are you citing a Secondary Source? Or on the August British copy, was "British" placed above "Mandate for Palestine" thus

British
-
Mandate for Palestine

talknic (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a dab term?

Why does this article have a disambiguation term in the title? Labalius (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the result of about a year of debate - in essence there was mass confusion between the term British Mandate for Palestine and Mandatory Palestine. The discussion is in the talk archives of the latter article. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sykes-Picot versus the Tripartite Agreement

The text under a diagram reads: "Zones of French, British and Russian influence and control proposed in the Sykes–Picot Agreement." My understanding was that an initial accord was reached between the British and French, Sykes-Picot, which, when modified to gain Russian assemt, became known as the Tripartite Agreement. Which of the agreements do the regions mapped in the diagram relate to?     ←   ZScarpia   20:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Allied fatwa issued by the Ottoman Claliph

It may be worth explaining that one of the major motives for encouraging King Feisal to rebel against the Ottomans was to try to neutralise the fatwa issued by the Caliph when the Ottomans joined the war on the Axis side which called on Muslims to rise up against the Allies, principally the British, French and Russians, which had the effect of destabilising colonies and causing mutinies among Muslim troops incorporated in those countries' armies. As King Feisal was the keeper of two of the most holy Muslim places, he also carried authority and a revolt by him would help dispel the threat represented by the Caliph's fatwa.     ←   ZScarpia   21:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Curiously, the Military Defeat of the Ottoman Empire section gives five sentences to the Jewish Legion, which was deliberately kept away from the bulk of the fighting in Palestine (the first involvement of the Jewish Legion in the fighting in the Palestine Region mentioned in the Jewish Legion article is June 1918) while the Arab Revolt is mentioned later and is given one sentence.     ←   ZScarpia   21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Transjordan

The section on Transjordan seems to give the reader the impression that Transjordan was not part of the Mandate. This contradicts what quite a few sources say:

• Christopher Sykes in Crossroads to Israel: 1917-1948, University of Indiana Press, page 43, says "The southern half of the former vilayet of Syria, due east across the Jordan from Palestine, had been under Feisal's rule. By the San Remo decisions this territory came under the British Palestine mandate." This book is very often cited by other scholars. See [4].
• Mutaz M. Qafisheh in The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality, Brill Academic Publishers, page 46, says "The Palestine Mandate was originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of 'Palestine'".
• Asher Susser here - "In 1921 the British decided that the territory on the East Bank of the Jordan River, though part of the Palestine Mandate, would become the Emirate of Transjordan".

There are many many more such high quality academic sources, and the article should reflect this. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the article is already better than that. The true story requires nuance, which the article has already using excellent detailed sources. Read your quotations with the understanding that the mandate was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 and didn't come into effect until 1923. Everything before that was negotiable and malleable. Transjordan was a major source of discussion and the decision to include it within the mandate was not firm until the Cairo Conference of 1921. If you think that the Sykes quote contradicts that, it is because you don't understand it. At the San Remo conference it wasn't even clear that Transjordan would go to the British and not the French or neither. Later the British and its spokespeople such as Sykes acted like it had been clear all along, just as the Revisionist branch of Zionism has ever since, without a microgram of truth, claimed that Transjordan was always supposed to be part of the Jewish homeland. One should prefer to use historians who have investigated the primary sources. Zero^talk 04:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Susser is referring to the future. In 1921 the British decided that Transjordan would become part of the Mandate but would be excluded from the Jewish homeland provisions. That is exactly what happened. He is not saying that Transjordan was already part of the mandate in 1921, though the wording is poor. Zero^talk 04:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to bring more sources? Telling me multiple academics got it wrong but you got it right is not how this place works. You know that. How about these guys:

• Martin Sicker [5] starting with "Again on August..."
• John Quigly (who nobody suspects of being a Zionist) [6] "Transjordan was included in the Palestine Mandate".

These are high quality sources that explicitly say Transjordan was part of the Mandate. This article should reflect that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one I found - Aruri (1972) - "the San Remo Conference on April 25, 1920, approved a French mandate in Syria proper and Lebanon, and a British mandate over Palestine. The League of Nations confirmed this decision two years later. Transjordan, which was part of Syria under Ottoman administration as wen as Faisal's government, was excluded from the French mandate. The San Remo Conference allotted this area to the British mandatory on the grounds that it was part of Palestine."

I think I have made my point per RS and NPOV. How do you suggest we fix the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

One more from Sicker, page 158 which is conveniently used in this article but somehow missed where he says "There was no question at the time, at least insofar as both Britain and France were concerned, that Trans-Jordan was part of Palestine and was included within the British Mandate."

Barring any policy based objections, and/or suggestions for the text, I'm going to edit the article according to the sources I produced above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG,

What Zero0000 writes and what the sources say are not in contradiction.

Until 1923, the exact bounderies were a matter of negociations between France and Britain (and Hachemites and Zionists). It is false to claim that Transjordan was part of Palestine and it is false to claim that the territory promised in 1917 didn't contain lands East of Jordan River. The exact borders had not been defined and when the French expelled Hussein from Damas after what Ali moved his forces North towards Damas, there was no choice but a negocation and the result of this negociation was the fact that the Mandate of Palestine (dedicated to establith a Jewish Home Nation mainly) was limited to West of Jordan but that Transjordan was attached to this to simplify everything. But the Mandate of Palestine territory didn't comprise Transjordan even if the mind of everybody the territory where the Jewish People could establish comprised the East side of Jordan River, at least on a few kilometers...

The Mandate of Palestine and the Palestine bounderies were defined in 1923. Before, it was just a potential entity. The parallel could be made with the State of Palestine today. Where is it ? Nobody can say.

In other words : Transjordan was not retired from the Mandate of Palestine territory. Given the exact borders of the Mandate of Palestine territory were defined after Transjordan was defined but it is true that the some lands East of Jordan were certainly expected to be part of the Lands where the Jewish People could establish and that the Mandate of Palestine territory had to gather the Lands where the Jewish People could establish but all this was before the French expelled Hussein from Damas and before the final negociations...

The case is complex and sometimes sources lack precision when it is not the matter on which they want to focus.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you're focusing on where Jewish people could or couldn't settle. That's not the issue here. The issue is that this article gives the reader an impression that Transjordan (whatever boundary) was not not included in the Palestine Mandate up until 1923. I have provided multiple sources that show otherwise. Moreover, some of them go as far as stating that it was considered part of Palestine (not just the Mandate). The article should reflect all this.

Another problem is that the article relies way too much on primary sources, with extensive quotes. All of that should be replaced with secondary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NMMGG,

Tranjordan was not included in the Mandate of Palestine before 1923 given there was no Mandate of Palestine beofre 1923 but Transjordan and Palestine was administrated by British as a Mandate starting the arrival of Samuel in July 1920.

Primary sources are never good when not supported by secondary sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG, if you wish to build consensus here, you will need to bring sources that explain their position on this specific point, not just state a view in passing. Otherwise your sources are not comparable with those sources at Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ: Transjordan. If you don't believe Bernard Wasserstein, Gideon Biger, and Adam Garfinkle, then surely you can find someone who actively disagrees with their views. These are not unknown academics whose views would go unchallenged if they were wrong. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy or guideline are you basing the above statement on?

I believe Nasser Aruri, and his book about the political development of Jordan is at least a good a source as any you mention above, he's already in the article, and he says in more than one place (including page 17, which is already in the article but somehow fails to mention it) that San Remo allotted the area of Transjordan to the British mandatory because it was considered part of Palestine. That's just one example. You wouldn't be the one who put Aruri in the article originally, would you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Einstein was a great academic, but he would not be an WP:RS for this topic. The same goes for other scholars whose speciality is closer to this specific question - we have to take a judgement based on whether those authors have studied the exact topic at hand. For example, Aruri is a Middle East scholar, but Gideon Biger is a specialist in the region's borders. And none of the sources you have brought discuss this topic in any kind of detail. Unless you can find better sources, you are wasting your time. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken and Aruri for this information is as reliable as Biger, and anyway there is no policy that makes a rule of your suggestion that the most detailed source is the best source. But I guess we'll find out if/when I use Aruri for something you think contradicts Biger.

Meanwhile, kindly open your copy of Biger to page 179, and observe where he says, after discussing the Cairo conference: After the decision to separate western Palestine from Trans-Jordan was reached, it took more than a year until the question of the borderline's precise location was addressed. Your favorite source supports my point. QED. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're close now, as you have: (1) decided to read a detailed source on this topic (Biger), and (2) provided a perfect illustration of how a single sentence can be misleading if not contextualized in the appropriate level of detail.

Biger's "decision to separate" is likely referring to either his description of the "traditional view" that they were part of the same traditional region on page 159, or to an implied simultaneous incorporation and separation much like the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon. If you read pages 159-178, it is extremely clear that he is NOT referring to it being previously part of the mandate allotted at San Remo (as you claim), and that it was never part of the allotted Homeland for the Jews. He says clearly on page 175 that the area had become "ownerless" in 1920.

Agreed? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not agreed at all. It is clear that the British considered some land east of the Jordan to be part of Palestine (see Biger page 163 where he explicitly says it and gives multiple examples). Multiple sources have said it, and your interpretation notwithstanding, no source I've seen so far contradicts it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And your comment on Biger's "ownerless" statement?

Please provide full quotes from Biger page 163, including the context. That page is not available in the online preview. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you for real? Did you just tell us what Biger pages 159-178 say without actually reading them? That's extremely dishonest. No wonder your edits look like you're working off someone's footnotes. You just fish google books for out of context stuff you like and never get the whole picture. Amazing.

Anyway, I don't know how much it's ok to quote from a copyrighted book, but here you go from Biger p-163:

The British view of the eastern boundary and the wartime arrangements

The British view as regards the eastern boundary of Palestine was apparent through several publications written during the war and following it. The British Encyclopaedia Britannica had claimed in 1911 that ‘the Jordan is not a boundary, and it only separates western Palestine from its eastern part. The eastern boundary is unclear, and it seems as if the pilgrims’ route from Damascus to Mecca should be the adequate boundary.’10 In the military handbooks which were published at Allenby’s headquarters while he was conducting the war in the region in 1917, it is said that the boundary of Palestine is ‘in the east – the pilgrims’ route and the railway between Damascus and Ma’an’.11

Here's what I think happened, from actually reading these sources rather than fishing for out of context stuff to push a POV: In San Remo it was agreed that the British will have mandates over "Mesopotamia" and "Palestine", both not well defined regions. Both the French and the British considered some lands east of the Jordan as part of Palestine (not just for this purpose, this was the historic view). No actual borders were drawn at the time. For various political reasons, when it came time to actually draw the borders, the British created Transjordan, which included these lands east of the Jordan river plus other lands nobody really cared about. Transjordan was still part of the same mandate instrument, but ruled differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought. Your reference to what "the British" thought was an amorphous and meaningless statement, exactly as absurd as someone claiming they know what "the Jews" think.

As an aside, I feel like through this and other conversations I am gradually helping a blind man to see. Except unfortunately for me, that the blind man is twisted, bitter and has a chronic inability to WP:AGF, so it is a slow and painful process.

Your summary is close but is off target. The central point which you miss is that the actual question which scholars focus on here is whether the Jewish Homeland created at San Remo was intended to include Transjordan.

At the time of San Remo, the territory was controlled between the Kingdom of Syria and Kingdom of Hejaz, both Hashemite monarchies, and after the Battle of Maysalun it became a No man's land. When talking about what "the British" believed, one needs to be more specific. "The British" that matter are those who attended and led the Cairo Conference (1921).

Oncenawhile (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, because I feel like I'm dealing with a somewhat dull child who does not understand when the adults can easily catch him lying. And seriously, if you once again try to provide information you claim to have read in a source and it turns out you didn't read it, I'm going to have to report you. It's enough that you regularly tendentiously distort what the sources say, but to find such proof that you didn't even read it, that's a bit much.

So you're saying my summary is correct, but doesn't focus on your pet peeve? How inconsiderate of me. At the time of San Remo, the British and French thought there were parts of Palestine east of the Jordan River. The British brought such a proposal to the Paris Peace Conference.

I have now provided at least 4 sources that say this, including the one you like best. I will continue to put this information in the article where appropriate, as time allows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's agree that trading insults is not going to correlate with progress (I am acknowledging my own fault here).

You have again ignored the points I made above, and created a strawman (your reference to "pet peeve" vs my "actual question which scholars focus on").

Have I ignored any important points you have made so far? If so, let me know - I will answer them in the hope that you will then answer mine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Using your source below, the 10km sliver proposed by the British in 1919 represents an area of 10km x 238km (the length of the current Jordan-Israel border), which equals 2380km2. The total area of Jordan is 89,342 km2. So even your single proposal at that one point in time relates to less than 3% of the whole region of Trans-Jordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

a. You can't know the size territory since the source doesn't specify the length, but nice try. b. Even if it was, so what? What are you trying to say here exactly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In 1919, and even before and even after, British, French and others considered Palestine (as well as the lands dedicated to the establishment of a Jewish Home) to go East of the Jordan River indeed. What Oncenawhile explains is that it was around 10 km East of this or something in that range.

And so what ? What's your point NMMNG ? What's new compared to what was already discussed about the fact the borders of the Mandate were officialy defined in 1923 ? Pluto2012 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1. That wasn't Oncenawhile explaining it, he was addressing a source I brought. 2. Where does the article reflect any of that? Except what I added so far, that is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your point, NMMNG ?

What do you want to change, add or remove ?

Could you make a clear written proposal ?Pluto2012 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff. I'll add information from RS as time permits, and if someone objects we can discuss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I do object any addition of information regarding this topic that you may make, sourced or not, given the clear controversies and misundertstandings around the topic.

So we can discuss. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

citations

Qualitatis, why are you removing the citation templates from the footnotes, such as in this edit and others? Please put them back. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The template is just one, user-unfriendly, way of including sources. Not obliged. Change was not to manipulate it. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Transjordan

Here is a quote from the Report on Middle East Conference held in Cairo and Jerusalem (Secret, 1921). It is part of a memorandum drawn up by the Middle East Department before the conference and appears in the agenda. What you can see here is that the question of how to treat Transjordan was by no means settled at that time. The British had plans for Transjordan's future, but to advance them needed legal standing in Transjordan. The means recommended for gaining that legal standing was to treat Transjordan as covered by the Mandate for Palestine, taking advantage of the fact that the extent of "Palestine" was at that time undefined. In other words, Transjordan got to be covered by the mandate not because the San Remo conference or other agreement put it there, but because it assisted the British plan to establish an Arab entity there.

His Majesty's Government are responsible under the terms of the Mandate for establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. They are also pledged by the assurances given to the Sherif of Mecca in 1915 to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in those portions of the (Turkish) vilayet of Damascus in which they are free to act without detriment to French interests. The western boundary of the Turkish vilayet of Damascus before the war was the River Jordan. Palestine and Trans-Jordan do not, therefore, stand upon quite the same footing. At the same time, the two areas are economically interdependent, and their development must be considered as a single problem. Further, His Majesty's Government have been entrusted with the Mandate for "Palestine." If they wish to assert their claim to Trans-Jordan and to avoid raising with other Powers the legal status of that area, they can only do so by proceeding upon the assumption that Trans-Jordan forms part of the area covered by the Palestine Mandate. In default of this assumption Trans-Jordan would be left, under article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres, to the disposal of the principal Allied Powers. Some means must be found of giving effect in Trans-Jordan to the terms of the Mandate consistently with "recognition and support of the independence of the Arabs."

Zero^talk 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Since it was at this conference that the British decided to install the Hashemites in TransJordan, it is therefore a literal impossibility for TransJordan to have ever been a part of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They could only rely on the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Not internationally recognized as such. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The memo above wrongly states that Palestine was not part of the vilayet of Damascus. The vilayet of Damascus was the vilayet of Syria, which was larger than the sanjak of Damascus, and thus included Palestine.

This is not relevant for the discussion, however. Even as of 24 July 1922, the territories east of the Jordan were part of the Palestine Mandate, per art. 25. In that sense, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was also included in the Palestine Mandate. The memo above reflects the concern that the eastern border was not defined. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence above is confused and incorrect, as contemporary maps make clear.

If you really believe that, you should bring sources to Talk:Syria Vilayet

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20040812133846/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline1a.html
Intriguing. What happened in the British Government, or in the Mandate Government (read Herbert Samuel), on 20 August 1920? --Qualitatis (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

20 August was Samuel's proclamation at Salt. As the article says "Without authority from London, Samuel then visited Transjordan and at a meeting with 600 leaders in Salt, announced the independence of the area from Damascus and its absorption into the mandate, quadrupling the area under his control by tacit capitulation. Samuel assured his audience that Transjordan would not be merged with Palestine.[49][50] The foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, repudiated Samuel's action.[51]"

Which goes to show that the JAFI source is poor quality. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the source is poor, but the date does not come out of the blue. It points to something. And it contradicts the Salt-story. It all happened after 20 August.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yUGYsBRpqPkC&pg=PA49, last para. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What happened after Aug 20? Samuel's meeting in Salt was in August for sure (Aug 21 according to Wilson, p46). Wilson's analysis on p49 agrees with the archival quotation I started this question with. What I don't see in Wilson or several other sources is confirmation of "announced..its absorption into the mandate". Zero^talk 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not dispute that date, of course. The JA says:

"Transjordan is included in the British Mandate over Palestine". (on 20 August)

It would be absurd to draw that conclusion from a mere promise of Samuel to exclude it from Palestine instead, not backed by London, while he himself wanted to include it.

As Zionist sources are propaganda and suspect by nature, I cannot rule out that the JA indeed referred to Salt, although it was not mentioned. But I do not want to further discuss it. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Poking around in the papers of the UK Cabinet, there are several drafts of the Palestine mandate during 1920. In two examples around June 1920, article 2 is called "Frontiers" but is blank. Clearly it was intended to add approximate boundaries there; approximate since article 3 specified the creation of a boundary commission to determine the precise boundaries. By Nov 20, 1920, both articles have disappeared and there is nothing anywhere in the text regarding the boundaries. Zero^talk 10:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions?

The de facto separation of Transjordan from Palestine did not take place until after Abdullah was given the throne in March 1921 in Jerusalem, after the 1921 Cairo Conference. Until then, it was no man's land in a status quo situation.

The formal, de jure, separation and setting of the borders did not happen until 18 April 1946, when it was recognized by the League of Nations and thus formally excluded from the Mandate (18 April 1946 not verified). Unless you have some formal earlier agreement about borders. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

separate entities

The last lead paragraph is plainly wrong. The memorandum changed the application of some articles, but did not split the Mandate or create a new protectorate. And it did for sure not make it semi-autonomous and install the Hashemite family. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. The memorandum secured LofN approval for the separate administration of Transjordan, which was its clear intention, but it didn't create those administrations. Zero^talk 10:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Qualitatis, you added to the lede
"The Trans-Jordan Memorandum annulled the articles regarding the Jewish National Home in the territory east of the Jordan. It also established a separate Administration of Trans-Jordan for the application of the Mandate, under the general supervision of Great Britain"

Whilst accurate, these need more context to not be misleading. First, the lede does not explain what the mandate itself did - we shouldn't focus on the TJ memo without describing the mandate first. Second, the memo should not be mentioned without describing Article 25 of the mandate. Third, we should not talk about annulling or "establishing a separate" without providing some context on the background to this, and the fact that the two decisions to incorporate TJ and also to separate TJ were made at the same conference (Cairo conference) in March 1921. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The first sentence above may be preceeded by: The Mandate legalized the temporary rule of Palestine by Great Britain.
2. While Article 25 is explained in section 6.2, the first sentence above is not misleading. IMO such background/technical details should not be in the lead. It is perfectly self-explaining.
3. In the lead of Cairo Conference (1921), I read that the split of the territory was not decided at the Conference itself. Moreover, the second sentence above is about a separate administration, which emanated directly from the Memorandum. Far from creating a separate territory.
4. The last sentence in the lead, reading The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948, is certainly wrong. It merely speaks of "the territory of Palestine ... within such boundaries as may be fixed by them" in the very first sentence. Moreover, 1923–1948 is not mentioned in the Mandate. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

On your point 3 above, please see verbatim from the Foreign Office memorandum from the 28 March 1921 meeting between Churchill and Abdullah:

28 March 1921, British record Turning to Transjordan, Churchill explained that His Majesty's Government were responsible for this area under a mandate given them by the Allied Powers in the peace settlement with Turkey. They recognised its Arab character, but felt it was too small to stand alone. Economically and geographically it should go with Palestine, and he proposed that it be constituted as an Arab province under an Arab Governor responsible to the High Commissioner for Palestine. .... It was considered that British control would have to be real in order to secure the interests of Palestine; to prevent the country being made a source of anxiety to the French; to enable the mandatory to fulfil international obligations, and to ensure good administration, which was necessary not only for the sake of the inhabitants, but also to enable the local Government to pay its way. The Arab Governor would be appointed by the High Commissioner for Palestine, agreed upon in the first place by him and by the Emir Abdullah as representing the Sherifian family. The chief officials and their principal assistants would be chosen with the approval of the High Commissioner, and all important measures would be subject to his ultimate sanction. Provisions would be agreed upon for the election of Trans-Jordania would not be included in the present administrative system of Palestine, and therefore the Zionist clauses of the Mandate would not apply. Hebrew would not be made an official language in Trans-Jordan, and the local government would not be expected to adopt any measures to promote Jewish immigration and colonisation.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Although, may be, these minutes were a source for the Conference article, they are not even mentioned there.
• The point is, that there is an essential difference between administration (TJ-Memorandum) and protectorate/self-governed territory/state. You seemed to have confused them.
• It was Churchill's real or feigned interpretation that Transjordan was given under a mandate. Yet, it was not even defined, and there was only a Palestine Mandate.
• Nevertheless, it was envisioned to remain under the responsibility of the High Commissioner for Palestine. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between at the Cairo conference and after the Cairo conference is somewhat artificial and unimportant. In the official report (which both of you can have if you ask by email) it is called the "Middle East Conference held in Cairo and Jerusalem. March 12th to 30th, 1921" and the meetings with Abdullah in Jerusalem and the resulting adjustment of the conference decisions are considered as part of it rather than an aftermath. Zero^talk 00:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Then, British Middle East Conference (1921) would be a more appropriate title. British being essential. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with that if you want to propose an WP:RM. Cairo Conference is much more common in google books though. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Zero0000, as an aside, I was just rereading the March 1921 quotation in the box above. I had a double-take when i noticed that these official British minutes are so candid in their references to the "Zionist clauses... colonisation". I have not seen that before in British government documents. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gotta have Feith

(Note: on 19 August 2015 Brad Dyer was indefinitely blocked for being a suspected sock of NoCal100.     ←   ZScarpia   10:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC))

User:No More Mr Nice Guy and User:Brad Dyer, who appear to have recently begun to "interact" on similar articles, both seem to like the text below:

According to Douglas J. Feith, there was never any question that the boundary of Britain's mandate for Palestine was to extend eastward to the western boundary of its mandate for Mesopotamia.

This text is misleading, because it implies that Palestine was intended to extend to Karameh. Of course this is not the case. The source actually says "The UK had not decided by 1920 where in the desert east of the Jordan River the boundary line between eastern Palestine and Mesopotamia should be drawn", which is a wholly different statement.

Brad, please stop blindly supporting NMMNG - occasionally he makes very poor quality edits, so some judgement is in order before reverting on his behalf.

Can someone please revert this misleading edit.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not blindly support NMMNG , or anyone else. I reverted you, to his version on 4 related articles, after seeing you made a blatantly false claim about a map displayed in them, which NMMNG had corrected. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside your ridiculous accusations and innuendo, perhaps you should look at the source again. The text in the article is almost word for word what the source says. It does not imply that Palestine was intended to extend to Karameh, it very simply says that the British mandates would be contiguous. This is also very obviously true for where it is placed chronologically, before Cairo. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have hardly any time for editing just now and just noticed this. Why the *&^*&^* is Douglas Feith being used as a history source? Come off it, guys. NMMNG, your edits lately have been the worst I've seen of you for a long time. Of course you can find endless sources to support just about any viewpoint on this subject, but the idea of neutral editing is to survey the sources, not just push the ones you like. You know that. Zero^talk 04:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That source was already in the article. I just made the text accurately reflect what the source says. I assumed that with so many eyes on this article, the source was vetted already. And anyway, it is trivial to source the fact the British expected their mandates to be contiguous.

The only source I added to this article so far is Christopher Skyes, and I have no doubt he's RS here, so I find your accusation to be unwarranted.

And yes, I do know that the idea of neutral editing is to survey the sources, not just push the ones you like. In that spirit, perhaps you could explain why you were cooperating with Oncenawhile's ridiculous FAQ? That is such a POV push it's not even funny. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG, you wrote above "it very simply says that the British mandates would be contiguous" and "the British expected their mandates to be contiguous". This is the language that I proposed for the article, and that Brad Dyer reverted [7]. So it seems we are agreed? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We are agreed as long as you keep the names of the regions they got at San Remo - Palestine and Mesopotamia. That's what they expected to be contiguous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So, are we keeping Feith in the article? I am not sure what it adds and it looks odd. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It adds the fact that the British expected the Eastern boundary of the mandate for Palestine to be in the desert, east of the Jordan river, that's a pretty important detail, don't you think? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's the Douglas Feith that's wikilinked to then it's not a good source.

How about this, from Biger page 170: When the Paris Peace Conference was assembled, the British delegation presented an official proposal, based on maps, for the future borderline of Palestine. On those maps the eastern boundary was located about 10 km east of the Jordan river, in a series of parallel lines.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with using Biger as a source for this. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement

"On 18 April 1946, Transjordan was formally separated from the Palestine Mandate,[10] with Abdullah remaining the king" this needs better wording, it implies that Transjordan was under some sort of unified government or any other type of unification other than on paper. Open to suggestions.. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't great. See if my changes are an improvement. Zero^talk 00:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

out of synch comment

The term "British Mandate" is a misnomer albeit constantly repeated giving the misimpression that somehow the Britsh created this "mandate," which is also a term frequently misunderstood or misinterpreted. The word "mandate" means a set of orders to be followed. It should always be referred to as the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, over which Britain was appointed to be the administrator or "mandatory power." It was a "Class A Mandate," as were the Mandates for Syria, where the French were the Mandatory Power and Iraq where the British too were selected as Mandatory Power and intended that those countries ultimately become independent states, which they did. The major difference with the Mandate for Palestine was that its goal was to establish a "Jewish National Home" for a people largely scattered outside of what the British called Palestine, and were expected to "return" in large numbers. Unfortunately, the term "Jewish State" was not explicitly used in the text of the San Remo document which has left it wide open to revisionist reinterpretation to this very day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.165.250 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Anon, I moved your comment to the correct place on this TP. Your comment appears to violate WP:FORUM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.15 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130014731/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/4c4f7515dc39195185256cf7006f878c!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/4c4f7515dc39195185256cf7006f878c!OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary source: Statement prepared for public information by the British Colonial Foreign Offices on termination of the Mandate

Palestine: Termination of the Mandate, 15 May 1948: Statement prepared for public information by the Colonial Office and Foreign Office, His Majesty's Stationery Office (from website of the Emory College of Arts and Sciences, Institute for the Study of Modern Israel)     ←   ZScarpia   16:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127035141/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/4c4f7515dc39195185256cf7006f878c%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416074414/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/sykes.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/sykes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212014308/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223041430/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/b08168048e277b5a052565f70058cef3%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/b08168048e277b5a052565f70058cef3%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916132453/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C7AAE196F41AA055052565F50054E656 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C7AAE196F41AA055052565F50054E656

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Above, Oscardoggy raised a point about the second paragraph of the Lead, which relates to the termination of the Mandate. Some comments on that paragraph:

• The Mandate was not "superseded" by Resolution 181. It continued in operation until midnight at the close of 14 May 1948.
• The British continued to govern Palestine until 14 May 1948, not 29 November 1947.
• The UN Trusteeship Council's role was supposed to relate specifically to the administration of Jerusalem, not the whole of Palestine.
• The source given for the contested text is Resolution 181. Resolution 181 is obviously a primary, not secondary, source. Also, it doesn't verify the text cited to it.

The last sentence of the second paragraph reads: "Government of the State of Israel was proclaimed over parts of this territory on 14 May, 1948." This is problematic in that it implies that the Proclamation declared that Israel would be created in specified parts of Palestine when, in fact, it didn't define borders at all.

The last sentence of the Lead states: "The League of Nations welcomed the end of the mandate in Transjordan on 18 April 1946." This does not appear to be supported by the cited source. In any case, the League of Nations had ceased to operate well beforehand, so the statement made is highly unlikely to be factual.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2017

My reading of the fourth paragraph beginning "Transjordan had been a no man's land following" ... is that the word "River" is missing at the end the following sentence:

Change The Trans-Jordan Memorandum provided the detail to support Article 25 of the Mandate, such that the Jewish National Home did not apply to the territory east of the Jordan. To The Trans-Jordan Memorandum provided the detail to support Article 25 of the Mandate, such that the Jewish National Home did not apply to the territory east of the Jordan River. Parent55 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)