Talk:Mandate for Palestine/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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/20060916035757/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS075.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS075.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503141432/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS046.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS046.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2017
"the future governmnent of Palestine" needs spelling correction of "government" Ergateesuk (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Good spot, done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Marking request as "answered" for the bot –72 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sanford Silverburg
I have removed this Sanford Silverburg quote here, as the second part re "non-sequitur" does not appear to match what is written in his work. It was added back in 2009 by User:Harlan wilkerson, who had not edited wikipedia for six years. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Background section
This is a poorly drafted section, which overlaps with numerous different articles. I propose to shorten this dramatically, with a header pointing to "main article = Balfour Declaration". The story of this article can start from the endpoint of the BD article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirect tidy up
Please see Talk:British Mandate of Palestine (disambiguation). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

United States in 1917
Just to be a pedant, I am quite sure that it's not true that the United States "had yet to suffer a casualty" in 1917. Even if you are only talking about military personnel and choose to ignore all the lives lost on the Lusitania and onboard other vessels, there were plenty of US citizens killed and wounded in European service. And while I assume the reference is to in the European conflict only, what about the occupation of Veracruz? That was related to the war in Europe. Haiti? THe Phillipines? US servicemen were being wounded and killed during the entire duration of the war, before and after the US declared war, and even before they committed large units to combat operations in the Western theater.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It means military casualty, and it is correct. Veracruz was prior to World War I. Haiti was part of the Banana Wars and not usually considered part of World War I. There were no Filipino casualties until 1918 (fighting for the Americans).
 * Plus it is sourced to:
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) → British Mandate for Palestine – The brackets are not needed. They have been there since the 2012 split from Mandatory Palestine. The two articles now have very separate scopes, clear introductions and detailed hatnotes, so it is very unlikely that readers would be confused or unable to distinguish after removal of the brackets. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NB edit history of the target, which has usually redirected to this article or Mandatory Palestine, and most recently redirected to Mandatory Palestine for the past year. If Mandatory Palestine is what is usually meant when readers search for "British Mandate for Palestine", the brackets on this article are necessary. This feels like a case for WP:RFD, but absent a discussion there, moving the disambiguation page to the base title may be the safest option. Mandatory Palestine gets about 3.5x the page views of this article. Dekimasu よ! 18:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, the preposition "for" in "British Mandate for Palestine" means that Mandate (i.e. the document) is the subject. Aside from grammar, the phrasing "Mandate for Palestine" matches the exact formal title of the document. Noone fluent in English would write "British Mandate for Palestine" and mean Mandatory Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it was installed to prevent frequent confusion per Dekimasu.GreyShark (dibra) 09:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure - an examination of the wiki articles for the other LoN Mandates (Iraq/Mesopotamia, Syria/Lebanon, Tanganyika etc) points to more confusion around the same issue. If I was starting over from scratch I might well do it differently (and at least attempt to be somehow consistent). I will defer to the majority opinion, whatever that is.Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dekimasu עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Draft mandates
The draft of July 1920 is in CAB 24/107/21; I can send it to you if you can't easily get it. Do you know where the 1919 Zionist draft can be found? Zerotalk 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That would be great if you could send. My understanding of the choreography is as follows:
 * February 1919 ZO draft Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine, 1919
 * July 1919 FO draft DBFP
 * December 1919 Cohen draft Palestine Mandate (December 1919 draft)
 * June 1920 draft Curzon draft Palestine Mandate (June 1920 draft)
 * December 1920 draft first LoN submission: Palestine Mandate (December 1920 draft)
 * July 1922 draft final LoN submission: Palestine Mandate
 * The one I really want to see is the July 1919 Foreign Office draft, as this is the first truly recognizable version of the final mandate (the ZO draft was really just a set of five principals). McTague says a copy is in here but I only have snippet view at this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent. If you find an archival reference for the July 1919 draft, I may be able to get it. Zerotalk 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there was a July 1919 draft, there were Zionist and British drafts dated 26 September (these are the ones in BDFP I believe) then there was December 11, March 15 1920, June 10 1920.(Note that Curzon took over from Balfour in October 1919 and set about a sort of rearguard action on the drafting (he considered the Zionists should not have been consulted on the drafting in the first place and disagreed with some of the things that were in the drafts up until then). At any rate this is what I have in some notes I made about this, let me see if I can find the places where I got the info from).Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi good to hear from you. I am hoping to make this a good article, just as for the McMahon and Balfour articles. One day I’ll try to get the Sykes-Picot to the same level, but it will need a deeper understanding of Armenia, Cilica and Kurdistan than I currently have.
 * As to the “July 1919 mandate”, I understood that from McTague: “Then in July, Foreign Secretary Balfour authorized Eric Forbes-Adam to begin direct negotiations with members of the Zionist Organization, including Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter, over the wording of the text. The Foreign Office unveiled a much longer document (twenty-nine articles compared to five in the earlier draft), but one which adhered quite closely to the general principles laid down in April.” (currently footnote d in the article). McTague’s footnote points to the 26 September document - it’s not clear to me when the document was first created.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Section "The drafting of the Palestine Mandate" from The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem:1917-1988 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0 and in Grief (his sourcing is usually OK) pages 322 and 471 has info there. Hope that's of some use.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you self. FYI I recently made an article on that work at The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, and another one on a similar publication which also covers the period in detail (ESCO Foundation for Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Correcting some errors: What I sent has a covering note of June 10, 1920 (not July) and is in CAB 24/107/71 (not CAB 24/107/21). It has 24 articles. In CAB 24/111/99 there is one with a covering note of Sep 25, 1920, with 29 articles. I'll send that later today. Maybe it is the same as what was sent to the LofN later that year, but that needs checking. Zerotalk 14:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will send you the two DBFP versions but it might have to wait two weeks as I'm far away from my library. Zerotalk 14:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s great news, thank you Zero.
 * In case you didn’t see i’m using the wiki software to compare the versions. For example:
 * here is the comparison between the Dec 1920 and July 1922 versions
 * here is the comparison between the Sep 1920 and Dec 1920 versions
 * I’ve uploaded the June 1920 version to wikisource and will see if I can align its format to make the comparison work.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See below a table I am planning on adding to the article once I can fully source it. I should have enough from secondary sources between McTague, ESCO and UNDPR. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A small aside: Zander, 1973, p.18 (which I have just added to the Bibliography) discusses Article 14 regarding the Holy Places. p. 18 suggests that this article was not completed on 22 July 1922 (i.e. when the mandate was approved), but was left open until a later meeting (in August according to the footnote reference). Seems odd that Zander is the only one to mention this that I have seen. It does seem to be confirmed by the snippet I can see at Onceinawhile (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have access to the full Official Journal (which is partly in French and partly in English). I'll send you these items along with some other stuff shortly. Zerotalk 10:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After a couple of abortive attempts, the contemplated Commission was never set up with the result that the situation stayed as the so called "Status Quo" of 1757 (about which you can read here https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/FD455E412ACE30AD0525668E006EF702)Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Kattan (Coexistence to Conquest) pages 61 and 62/ (footnotes 161 to 163 refer to a March 20 1919 Proposals from Frankfurter to Meinertshagen (UK NA FO 608/100 and to the "travaux preparatoires" (preparatory work) re drafts of the mandate between Zionists and Political Section as available in CO 733/248/19. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are files I have easy access to. The NA links are here:  . What happens if you want a copy is that first they charge you a non-refundable 8.40 pounds to tell you how much a copy will cost, and then you will have the choice of paying for the copy. In my experience it can cost quite a lot (once I was quoted several hundred pounds for a large file).  It's always a "how badly do I want it?" type of decision. Zerotalk 12:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, on the same theme, have you come across a copy of the 211-page "Report on Middle East Conference held in Cairo and Jerusalem" (CO 935/1/1 or FO/371/6343). It's available at Adam Matthew but I don't have access.
 * This is the conference during which Article 25 was drafted, so I'm keen to get to the primary source on the matter. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.dropbox.com/s/1v0n1q3ctz2t0mi/cab-24-122_77.pdf?dl=0 might be of some interest, Churchill memo to Cabinet of April 1921, "Transjordania".(extracted from CAB24)Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your ping didn't work. I thought I sent that 211-page report to you before. I'll send it again when I'm not at an airport. you can have it too if you send me wikimail. Zerotalk 22:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for offer, afraid I do not know what wikimail is, lol. Iirc, most of that conference was about colonial budgets and force deployments around ME, maybe when you have some time, dropbox just the relevant pages if that's not too much trouble. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have an email address set in your preferences, you can send mail to anyone who has likewise set an email address by clicking the link "Email this user" that appears in the sidebar when you visit their user page. In my case the link is this one. Note that it exposes your email address to the person you write to, so people who don't want this have an anonymous email address for Wikipedia purposes. Sorry I don't use dropbox and don't want to write any cloud-based address in the clear here. Zerotalk 22:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I set an email in my prefs and sent you a wikimail to test it, think I did it OK, thanks for explanation Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I managed to get access to the 211-page doc. I read it and read it but nothing on article 25 seemed to be there. Until almost the last page in the appendix. I will add to the article.
 * I am pleased to confirm that we can finally dispense with the debate about Transjordan. The correspondence is explicit, that Article 25 was added to the mandate to allow for the inclusion of Transjordan into the boundaries of Palestine.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was always the case that the boundaries of "Palestine" for the purposes of the Mandate (ie some geographical area to be defined) were to be established (perhaps the confusion was caused by different people talking then about "Palestine" having different ideas about what they precisely meant by that term)Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine included Transjordan.
All these BS wikipedia entries are revisionist and consider "Palestine" and "Transjordan" as separate entities. They weren't. It was all "Mandatory Palestine" until the Brits gave the Arabs (Hashemite family) nearly 80% of Palestine and then called it Transjordan. I'm sure this has been edited in and out several times, but it is the reality. Someone with more admin strength should set this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40f:600:1abb:cc77:1d30:6f9c:8d2d (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * please read the section of the article on Transjordan. All of it. And look at the sources. You will see when you read it that you have been taken in by propaganda. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny to choose the word "revisionist" when this fairy-story version is strongly associated with Revisionists. Zerotalk 02:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Question/Suggestion on Balfour Declaration Incorporation in to Mandate for Palestine
It seems odd that in the Balfour section of this entry on the Mandate for Palestine there is not an explicit mention of the fact that it was incorporated explicitly. It seems that something like the following sentence should be added, likely in the beginning of that subsection, but also in the summary introduction: "The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the preamble and second article of the Mandate for Palestine."

It's a plain factual statement and would help clarify the relationship of the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate -- without making it clear in the beginning, all the explanation of the specifics and background of Balfour are wasted. No matter one's opinion on the underlying issue, this seems like a flaw that ought to be addressed. The supporting documentation is pretty easy -- it's right in the WikiSource text of the Mandate.

Hopefully I'm simply adding this suggestion to the ongoing discussion on this page -- which is my intent, and not muddying an existing discussion, which is not my intent.

Paul


 * Thanks for the helpful suggestion. I have added this in. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Lieshout and the border between Palestine and Jordan
I think Lieshout's statement (the basis for your edit ): "As to Palestine’s boundaries, during the conference France and Britain had decided with respect to its eastern frontier to adhere to the line fixed in the Sykes–Picot agreement, where the River Jordan had been the boundary between zone ‘B’ and the area under international administration" is incorrect. My read of the minutes which Lieshout uses (see image of page 10, right) has the French referring to this topic twice, but the British avoid giving a commitment. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it could be so. The problem is that Lieshout is a secondary source and the minutes are a primary source so we have a little bit of a problem there since interpretation (by us) of a primary source could/would be considered OR(it seems to me that you CAN read those minutes in the way that Lieshout has done). I can't remember now, do we have an alternative secondary source confirming when the border was set? Then we can include that in addition as an alternative view to that of Lieshout. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am looking at the OETA and Transjordan pages, the whole thing seems very unclear at the moment, I will do some more hunting about.Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The area was included in the Arab Kingdom of Syria from 26 Nov 1919 then on the OETA page secondary source says after Maysalun (24 Jul 1920 which is after San Remo) that the Arab zone was divided into two, the southern part of which became TJ and the French took the North part. So when you look at it this way, Lieshout opinion starts to make some sense, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If I am not wrong, it is the British leaving OETA East in November 1919 that "allows" the creation of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. I can't figure out the geographical Eastward extent of AKS (the West is the Jordan, I think), I am just guessing that the Southernmost part of it becomes (some or all of) TJ in the end. In a way, San Remo had to happen to sort out the potential (which became actual) mess brewing between the French and Faisal after the latter finds out about SP.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To further confuse the issue, on the San Remo page we have "Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria comprising the mutessarriflik of Jerusalem and part of the vilayets of Beirut and Syria" (!)Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also on the San Remo page, we give Karsh as saying that "Curzon instructed Vansittart to leave the Eastern boundary of Palestine undefined" but that is not what Curzon (or Karsh, quoting, Curzon) actually said, he said that "HMG are already treating TJ as separate from the Damascus State while at the same time avoiding any definite connection..."Selfstudier (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We are giving Paris on page 203 as a ref relating to this but take a look at page 202. "two principles  that  emerged  in  1920  and  were  calculated  to  further  define  the nature of the new state, served only to further confuse matters and to generate the uncertainty  of  which  Abdullah,  Samuel  and  Philby  later  complained.  The  first was  that  the  administrative  authority  of  the  Palestine  government  would  not  be extended  east  of  the  Jordan,  a  principle  laid  down  as  early  as  July  1920." and "SinceMcMahon had excluded from the area of promised Arab independence territorylying west of the ‘district of Damascus’, he argued that in areas to the east of that district—that  is,  east  of  the  River  Jordan—Britain  was  obligated  to  ‘recognise and  support’  such  independence." To my mind this clearly establishes the British thinking on the subject (even if the i's were not dotted and the t's not crossed) and I cannot see any reason why they would have had a different opinion at San Remo which would seem to lend support to the Lieshout version of events.Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with this (we have Curzon's 26 August 1920 "There must be no question of setting up any British administration in that area" in the article).
 * Note that immediately before this, in early August 1920, Samuel was still pushing to widen the boundary. And Curzon was not fond of Zionism, whereas Lloyd George was, so it's entirely possible for different body language in San Remo vs later Foreign Office decisions.
 * You mentioned above that "it seems to me that you CAN read those minutes in the way that Lieshout has done". Could you point to which sentences you have in mind?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You are interpreting the primary to say that the British did not commit to it, I am interpreting it (or Lieshout is, let's say) to say that the lack of British commitment to it implies agreement to the suggestion -> You have "...no difficulty in regard to the Eastern frontier of Palestine" and in second para, "...fully agreed with..." and in the last para "....no real difficulties.....Mosul". I read any difficulties as only relating to the "Dan to Beersheeba" nonsense (because no-one knew where Dan actually was). In any case, the Lieshout interpretation is possible (as I said, if we could find another interpretation of the same data, that would help).

Also note that we are not talking about legalities here, only what the French and British might have agreed to at some point. Other data (ie facts on the ground) also would seem at least in principle to support the Lieshout interpretation. And if later Churchill is going around saying "What Syria is it that the French have been given a Mandate for" (how far South does it go) how can he ask that (decide that) unless the territory be known?

This is not a question of "body language" it is a question of whether or not the French and British had agreed something (between themselves). It's clear that Iraq and Palestine in the original conception were going to meet and it is simply a question of where they were going to meet and it seems to me the British might well have decided that it would be at the Jordan (it is where the Ottoman also divided it in terms of sanjaks). I agree that at various points, the Zionists did attempt to extend their claims across the river but afaik all these claims were rebuffed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at it another way, in all the negotiations from Versailles on, the French wanted to stick with SP and the border of "Palestine" (brown area) that was in that agreement. The French then became increasingly irate at LG/English demand for more and more concessions after they had already given over Palestine and Mosul, which is why you see all these arguments in the FRUS accounts. So while the French did give way eventually on the Northern side (the "Dan" bit) I think they simply insisted on SP otherwise (which includes the Eastern border) and what else could the English do except go along with that? Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not helpful to write "no-one knew where Dan actually was" since what mattered was where they thought it was. At time the only options on the table were Tel el-Qadi (the place accepted today) and Banias (preferred by George Adam Smith). Since these are only 4km apart, it doesn't make a difference regarding most of the eastern boundary. It could only make a difference regarding the water sources at the northern boundary. Zerotalk 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I only meant that to the extent there was any dispute between the English and the French then that area was where it was, LG had introduced the biblical reference into the discussion and it was well North of the SP line.Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

On a separate matter (my memory is bad these days) can you remind me where we get the "no man's land" thing from? It says Transjordan became a no man's land after the French defeated Faisal's army in July 1920.Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See Mandate_for_Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) That is also quite puzzling since we are talking about a time after San Remo ie Mandates had been awarded according to which either it was Syrian or it was going to be Iraq (or even (theoretically) revert to Turkey). Once again, I find myself thinking that it is only the French and the English that can sort it out (at this point in time). At any rate, the "territory" or "no man's land" being discussed must have had some definition and where can it begin except at the Jordan?Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also see the British explanation to the right from March 1921; they refer to art 132 of Sevres: . Onceinawhile (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, legally speaking Turkey surrenders the territory in question at Sevres and then again, later. Although that is dated in 1921, that British position goes back much earlier than that, I think. Anyway, they had to add it to the Mandate in order to subsequently run it separately. The Iraq revolt in 1920 also confused the issue.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Biger (on pages 164 and 165) manages a reasonable explanation of all this. In particular:

"At the beginning of 1918, soon after the southern part of Palestine was conquered, the Foreign Office determined that ‘Faisal’s authority over the  area  that  he  controls  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan  river should be recognized. We can confirm this recognition of ours even if our forces do not currently control major parts of Trans-Jordan.’"

and subsequent.Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited the relevant section to put it in date order and to show that there were two opposing viewpoints in the UK gov, the debate going on all the while since the end of the war. I hope I managed to make it a bit clearer. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The only thing bothering me now is that there seems to be a fair amount of crossover in the material under the sections Transjordan and Palestine transjordan border. Could we not integrate the material from the second section into the first?Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Officially setting the eastern border
...which set the boundary as simply "the Jordan [river]", and subsequently in the September 1922 Transjordan memorandum which described the boundary in more detail: "from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk; thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian Frontier" — all true. The Transjordan memorandum was presented to the LoN on Sep 22, but this exact border description had already appeared in the Palestine Gazette of Sep 1 citing the authority of the Order-in-Council published in the same issue. There is nothing wrong with the way this is presented; I just want to note for future reference that the border presented in the TM had already been firmly decided, contrary to some sources which think the border description in the TM was just a proposal for LoN consideration. Zerotalk 02:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thinking more, I wonder if the O-in-C shouldn't be mentioned instead of, or before, the TM. Here is the full text from p16 of Official Gazette of Government of Palestine, Extraordinary Issue, 1st September, 1922.:
 * WHEREAS it is provided in the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922, that the said Order shall not apply to such part of the territories to the East of the Jordan and the Dead Sea as shall be defined by Order of the High Commissioner, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS :— The Palestine Order-in-Council 1922 shall not apply to the territory lying East of a line drawn from a point two miles West of the town of Akabah in the Gulf of Akabah up the centre of the Wady Arabah, the Dead Sea and the River Jordan to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian Frontier. HERBERT SAMUEL, High Commissioner, 1st September, 1922. Zerotalk 02:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

TJ came into existence 11 April (I suppose you would call that a border in principle or some such term). Then the Mandate was approved 24 July (that included TJ at this point, I assume, but still with only a border in principle?). Then on 1 September, you get the o-i-c (there is a gap there of a month or so, is that where the carving up myth comes from?). Anyway, it is a good idea to pin it down as much as possible, so I agree with the suggestion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you for pointing this out. Biger confirms it on page 183: “The publication of this version in an official newspaper gave official validity to the existence of two separate mandatory territories – Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and this determination received international validity together  with the acceptance of the corrected mandate’s sections by the League of Nations, on 23 September 1922.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that although the mandatory was to fix the border (for a class A) it still required a sign off from the LoN (not just an oic) for it to be fully legal (although I can't see why they would object provided that there was otherwise no breach of the mandate terms).So here, TJ is added to the Palestine mandate with borders to be fixed between it and Palestine and then, some weeks later, they are fixed and then some weeks after that, signed off on. Is that not how it works? Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Harv warning

 * Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBentwich1929.
 * Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFESCO_Foundation_for_Palestine1947.
 * Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFUnited_Nations_Division_for_Palestinian_Rights1978.

Nice article btw. Cinadon36 13:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ with thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Muza Kazim edit
Not entirely sure the given text accurately reflects the article (I gave a url for the full text). Also it seems to contradict the reference in Balfour Declaration article that says Balfour Declaration was in Sevres but not in Lausanne? Selfstudier (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the last sentence re Lausanne is problematic. It was drafted here.
 * Grief, although prone to bias, has a reasonably clear explanation:
 * He says that all the relevant articles in Sevres were replaced by just Article 16 of Lausanne, which did not provide any specifics about the mandates.
 * Would be good to find a source connecting all this together – i.e. how did the drafters of the Lausanne treaty think about the question at the time.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I will see if I can find something, one problem is that many legal questions were never (and may never be) tested in any court and there is a multiplicity of legal opinions on the issues. While it is clear that San Remo didn't make it into Lausanne, it is not clear that it matters at all (in other words, it didn't matter that it was in Sevres and it equally did not matter that it wasn't in Lausanne which is essentially what we have in the Balfour Declaration article at this point). It is clear that Turkey (and the Hejaz) did not sign off on the Mandates and it is also clear that Turkey did not cede its territories to anyone in particular (in Sevres it ceded them to the Allied Powers and required Turkey to cooperate with San Remo). There are all sorts of legal issues which follow from this and as you might expect, there is disagreement about all of them.
 * For example, here is the flip side of Grief https://i-p-o.org/Koechler-Palestine-Jerusalem-Arab_League-IPO-OP-February2012.htm (the para that begins "Through these provisions...)

Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have summarized it very well. It is of limited consequence, but it was disputed heavily for some time so we should note it. Perhaps another sentence or two could be added in the “Legality” section of the article regarding Lausanne? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * These same issues were raised by the Saudi, Syria and Lebanese representatives of the Arab League as part of their testimony to UNSCOP in 1947 (39th meeting at Sofar, A/AC 13/PV39). The UNSCOP report had a majority and minority and two committees were set up to detail them, the minority committee raised up all the legal questions and wanted an ICJ opinion but were voted down in favour of the majority report (there was a lot of arm twisting going on in the background).

I doubt we would add any value to the article by discussing these particular issues specifically, there are many other legal issues besides these.I did alter the edit to clarify that the Mandates were not in Lausanne.Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Grief as source
has reverted my adding him in as a source (which has in turn messed up the edit wherein I used it:) OK, I do not disagree that he is a bit ott in his opinions but if he has been accepted as a source for the Balfour Declaration article (which I just copy edited it from) then I see no reason for a change of heart now? I have only relied on it for a small statement of fact not for some outrageous opinion of his.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise he had been used as a source for BD. That is unacceptable and I'll remove him from there. Just read some pages from Grief to see how far from RS he is. It is nearly impossible to find a book on this subject that is more unreliable. Zerotalk 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Look at the starting point of Grief's book: "The term “Israel” appearing in the title of this book is used to denote all areas of the historical Land of Israel, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan that were part of the mandated area of Palestine. It also includes those parts of the historical Land of Israel that were illegally excluded when the boundaries of Palestine were determined by Great Britain and France in 1920 and 1922: Southern Lebanon up to the bend of the Litani River, the Bashan (including the Golan) north of the Yarmuk River, and at least half of the Sinai Peninsula." Nobody who takes such an extreme position should be used as a source in our articles. Zerotalk 16:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't want to fight over RS, I will see if I can find an alternative reference for that fact. I am not disagreeing with you that his opinions are off piste, its just that WP seems not that clear about where the line is for RS (or who decides where the line is, for that matter). I'm sure Grief has his defenders, even for his opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Heanor (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Mandate for Palestine → Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan – 'Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan' would be a much WP:PRECISE title for this article. This would also be WP:CONSISTENT with Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, which I find to be a bonus. Heanor (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the actual original mandate documents in the infoboxes of both articles. This document was just “Mandate for Palestine”; it was not renamed when Transjordan was added. The other is actually called “Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon”. So the current situation is the precise one. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile is correct. Zerotalk 13:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drafting
I don't know if it was intended to be so, I realize there were many drafts, it was in the table at one point, I'm not sure why it disappeared but it seems that we have little or no discussion over one well known and possibly important draft, sometimes called the Foreign Office draft of 15 March 1920, sent from Vansittart in Paris to Curzon and being the first that Curzon commented on at any length. (This was just before the Nebi Musa riots and San Remo and also the version that Samuel had at his disposal when he was assigned to Palestine in June and it is the version over which important discussion was had as to the meaning of the Declaration.) I can't find the draft anywhere myself and I don't know how it differs from the December 1919 version so I am going to include something in the "Curzon negotiations" section. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed – unfortunately I have been unable to locate this March draft as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article says "on receiving a draft of 15 March, 1921" but the source says 1920. I won't change it in case it is more than a one-digit typo. Zerotalk 10:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the interlibrary-loan system can get something from the UK Parliamentary Archives, see . Zerotalk 10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just put this here for now so I don't forget about it. p205 Points to Seeds of Conflict, in there too. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)