Talk:White Paper of 1939

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White Paper of 1939 is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Israel Portal
White Paper of 1939 is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is very interesting. It's related to many articles around Wikipedia but I decided not to spam and to notify about it in just one place. I hope someone picks it up. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Related pages

If anyone's especially knowledgable in this area can they take a look at both Malcolm MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain#The Palestine White Paper to see if the relevant text needs modification. Timrollpickering 20:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abolition

On May 15, 1948, the government of the new state of Israel issued an injunction officially abolishing the White Paper.

Did it actually have the legal authority to rescind it? Timrollpickering 13:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that depends who you ask. The leaders of the then one-day-old state of Israel interpreted the United Nations decision of November 29, 1947 as giving them jurisdiction over the territory formerly known as Palestine (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). Several Arab leaders in the area felt differently, and responded by invading Israel (see 1948 Arab-Israeli War). Read your history and judge for yourself. There are no easy answers. --Woggly 10:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
After May 14, 1948, Israel was a sovereign state. It had complete control over who entered its territory. It didn't matter what the Arab States thought. They had no status to object other than as members of the United Nations which itself lost its authority the moment it adopted the Partition Resolution.Scott Adler 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the consequence of the British White Papers was that European Jews were barred from entering Palestine. Had Churchill allowed Jewish immigration, the Holocaust may have been averted. I think it would be appropriate if this article broached this important consequence.

One might then point out that a simpler way to avert the Holocaust would be if Churchill allowed Jewish immigration into Great Britain itself, then forbidden. Or perhaps convince his friend President Roosevelt to raise the very strict (6,000/year) quota on Jewish immigration into the United States (a much larger country than Palestine, with far greater resources, and with no groups actively calling for its permanent transformation into a Jewish Commonwealth).Brian Tvedt 01:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Simpler? Duh -- Without the White Paper in force, entry into Palestine would have required nothing more than a train ticket through Turkey and Syria. With the White Paper, they were stuck behind German lines. This was especially tragic for the Jews of Greece and Romania. The White Paper probably killed 250,000 people. Regarding the idea that the Jews should have gone to the UK or the US, there was something called World War Two in the way. German wolf packs patroled the Med and the Atlantic. But Palestine was simply a train ride from Istanbul. Besides, the League of Nations had opened Jewish immigration to Palestine as a legal condition of the Mandate. Britain was not a colonial power in Palestine, but a Mandatory power, it was not sovereign, it had no authority to restrict Jewish immigration.Scott Adler 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To return to the original quote - Neither the government of Israel not anyone else other than the UK parliament can abolish any act of that Parliament, including this White Paper. Shouldn't it say that Israel issued an injunction the effects of the White Paper would no longer be applied there Emeraude 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)?

First, the Provisional Government did not issue an Injunction. An injunction is a legal term, a civil court order forbidding a specific action, such as a strike. The Provisional Government simply rescinded the White Paper. It did this because it already had a legal system in place created by Ottoman and British rulers. The White Paper was on the books. After it was rescinded, it wasn't.Scott Adler 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2.nd sentence in 2.nd paragraph

It goes like this: "Previous White Papers had reinterpreted the Balfour Declaration, 1917 and declared that Britain did not intend to build an independent Jewish state in Palestine."

I find this sentence most confusing. Some information must be missing. As it stands now, it sounds as if the Balfour Declaration, 1917 states that it supported the building of an "independent Jewish state in Palestine". Which the Balfour Declaration, 1917 most certainly does not. Does anybody know anything about these previous "White Papers"? Some clarification is needed here. Thanks. Huldra 19:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably a reference to the Churchill White Paper of 1922, which is reprinted in the Laquer/Rubin Israel-Arab Reader. I think there were some other white papers as well. Basically any memorandum from the British Foreign Ministry was called a white paper; "the" white paper means the one discussed in this article. The sentence in the article is just wrong; as you point out, the Balfour declaration says nothing about a "state", it only refers to a "national home". This part of the article needs to be fixed. Brian Tvedt 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Something as simple as "Previous White Papers had elaborated on the 1917 Balfour Declaration by pointing out that Britain did not endorse actual Jewish statehood." ?? Ramallite (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that was a definite improvement, but I still would like some more detail as to these "elaborations" and exactly what they consisted of. It seems like different people read very, very different things into the different Declarations.
Also: why do all articles here stress that the White Paper of 1939 was "unilaterally conceived by the British"? ...The word "unilateral" is never mentioned in connection with the Balfour 1917 Declaration, -and wasn´t that declaration just as "unilateral"? (Except for agreeing with a private zionist organization). It seems to me this isn´t a very NPOV editing: Unless we/somebody can show that the Balfour 1917 Declaration was based on a broader international consensus than the White Paper of 1939, I think we should remove the word "unilateral" here (or insert it in all references to the Balfour 1917 Declaration... I think I would prefer removing it here.) Huldra 01:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The White Paper was Illegal under International Law

The British Mandate in Palestine required that every change in British policy towards its mandate had to be approved by the League of Nations. When the British government submitted the 1939 White Paper for approval by the overseeing authority, the League's Mandates Commission, that approval was refused. The commission declared that thew White Paper did not conform to the Mandate, which was the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In consequence, the White Paper never became binding law. This is crucial information ignored in this article.[1] Guy Montag 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's some truth in this. After the White Paper was submitted to the Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939 the members advised the Council that the policy set out in the paper was not in accordance with the Commission's interpretation of the Mandate. However, the Commission decided to hand over the final decision to the next meeting of the Council of the League, which was due in September. Owing to WWII the Council never met again. Some of the article is unsourced propaganda. --Ian Pitchford 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the Council never met, the previous decision stands. Guy Montag 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

According to? --Ian Pitchford 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In May 1939 the League of Nations had no authority worth speaking of and "internaitonal law" was largely the rule of the strongest. No one challenged the laws in a british court but had they done so a court would undoubtably have upheld the British government. Telaviv1 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Reordering, & elaborating

I have now reordered the text into 3 parts: what came before the White Paper of 1939, the White Paper itself, and, finally: the reaction to it. I have particulary expanded Part 2: White Paper itself. After all: that is what this article is about! -There is still work to do; in the 3.rd part it says both that the the plans were dropped the following year...and that they brought tensions over immigration at the end of WWII (!) -need to clarify which parts were dropped Huldra 06:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

-Also: what about Arab/Palestinian reactions? They should of course also be quoted (like the Jewish/Zionist reaction). However, I do not have any ref. about their reaction easily available; I hope somebody who does will add the information. Huldra 13:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinian leadership joined the Axis. Their leader, the Grand Mufti, went to Baghdad, then to Berlin. So, their reaction was likely in this context.Scott Adler 01:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I have tightened the text up, and eliminated material either POV, erroneous, deriving from unreliable sources, or stating as an objective fact what is a partisan opinion. E.g.

'The White Paper of 1939, indirectly, made a major contribution to the Holocaust by severely restricting Jewish entry to Palestine. After the Second World War it resulted in violent conflict between the Zionist movement in Palestine and British Government.

The second part is also untrue, since it refers to actions that began to assume greater force after the White Paper, not after WW2 (Jewish terrorism against the Mandatory authorities), etc.Nishidani 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Since the introduction is controversial I suggest debating it before making changes. Telaviv1 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As the remark was placed, it was a private editorial opinion (POV), since no source was given, and thus had no place on the page.Nishidani 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)