The Peel Commission of 1936, formally known as the Palestine Royal Commission, was a British Royal Commission of Inquiry set out to propose changes to the British Mandate of Palestine following the outbreak of the Great Uprising. It was headed by William James Robert Peel, 3rd Earl Peel. On 11 November, 1936, the commission arrived to Palestine to investigate the reasons behind the uprising. It returned to Britain on 18 January, 1937. On 7 July, 1937, it recommended that the Mandate be eventually abolished — except in a "corridor" surrounding Jerusalem, stretching to the Mediterranean Coast just south of Jaffa, Israel — and the land under its authority (and accordingly, the transfer of both Arab and Jewish populations) be apportioned between an Arab and Jewish states. The Jewish side was to receive a territorially smaller portion in the mid-west and north, from Mount Carmel to south of Be'er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee, while the Arab state was to receive territory in the south and mid-east which included Judea, Samaria and the sizable, though economically undeveloped and unfertile, Negev. The Arab leadership rejected the plan, while the Jewish opinion remained heatedly divided. The Twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich (3-16 August) announced ''that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted,'' [but wished] ''to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine.'' == References == ===Report of the Palestine Royal Commission=== *[http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL)] == See also == * Arab-Israeli conflict * 1922 Text: League of Nations Palestine Mandate * White Paper of 1939 * Shaw Report __NOTOC__ Israeli history Palestine Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine Arab
== Added Peel Commission definition == I attempted to be concise and balanced, while avoiding ahistorical reductionism. I welcome educated opinion from all sides. Thanks. --User:El_C 18:01, 29 Aug 2004. * Reverted back to the original sentence structure. See my comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kahan_Commission here] for further details. Kept the ''Great Uprising'' addition though, which is both useful and important, and something I should have thought of. Thanks for that. User:El_C * Those additions are useful, well done. But please heed my request as per retaining the article's first paragraph. Also, again, please cease from Americanizing the dates, as a courtesy to the original author (me! ). User:El_C * Well, as soon as I posted it it was changed back to the original. I'm so confused. The additions were good in substance, but some of the the form was a bit lacking, to be honest. User:El_C :Please let me try to restore a few paragraphs you inadvertently (I hope :))) removed. As for the dates, AFAIK the format is (or should be) consistent throughout WP, or be configurable via prefs. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) * Okay, I revised your additions. Cursory revision, but I tried to give it serious attention. 1. Changed the dates back to British (which incidentally is what you will see if you actually read the ''Report of the Peel Commission'' ). English has both styles, it varies. A recently read a book by the former American Ambassador to Zambia, he uses the British style. I don't think it is appropriate for it to be a date competition, or worse, date competition-revision, from American to British or vice versa. It is all very silly. So once again, with all due respect, please do not change the dates in articles that I author to American style. I am accustomed to British, and it makes it easier for me to improve when reading my own words. 2. Some grammatical changes. Not many, most were minor. For example, ''projected''. The reader assumes that the reference is to a projected state, since s/he just read it being recommended by Lord Peel. Or ''flatly''. Either that flatly is qualified, or rejected (a pretty strong word in itself) is fine. The qualification is even more pressing for the Jewish side, as opinion was less unified, so I added an excerpt from the Ben Guryon's proposal adopted by the 20th Jewish Congress with respect to the Peel Partition [um, this sort of went into no.3 (content), sorry.]. 3. Most significantly, took out the period 1938-onwards. Those belong in another article(s). The Arabs rejected the Peel Partition and the 20th Jewish Congress said it was unacceptable but wanted further negotiations to ongo. And that's it for the Peel ''Commission.'' The Peel ''Partition'', for example, could be its own article. There, you could speak about the Woodhead Commission viz. and in relation to the Peel Partition. We are only noting here ''the reasons for'' - ''work done by'' - ''recommendations of'' - ''reactions of parties to'' - ''action taken or lack thereof''. User:El_C * Additional revision for the first paragraph. Took out outbreak and Palestinian Arabs and date for the Great Uprising. It was a ''Great'' uprising, we tell the reader, so either s/he knows about it or clicks the link and finds all about it. Less petinent to get into the Great Uprising while we are introducing the Peel Commission. Suffice that it is wikilinked and it is noted as ''the'' impetus. Simpler does not always mean less comprehensive (though, on the same token, nor does it always mean more lucid). User:El_C : I have moved the text into White Paper of 1939, which should have been created long ago. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 22:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) == The Jewish side was to receive a territorially smaller portion == The usual literally true but misleading Z------ slant. The numerically larger non-Jewish side was to receive the territorially larger but economically undesirable Negev.User:24.64.166.191 07:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC) :As the editor who authored that, I find it to be a good point. Please see my latest edit. But, it wasn't a Zionist slant, I just overlooked that, I'm not sure exactly why, but I was driven by no such motive, that would be antithetical to my worldview. User:El C 08:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Peel_Commission:
Peel_Commission
Peel_Commission
Peel Commission
The Peel Commission of 1936, formally known as the Palestine Royal Commission, was a British Royal Commission of Inquiry set out to propose changes to the British Mandate of Palestine following the outbreak of the Great Uprising. It was headed by William James Robert Peel, 3rd Earl Peel. On 11 November, 1936, the commission arrived to Palestine to investigate the reasons behind the uprising. It returned to Britain on 18 January, 1937. On 7 July, 1937, it recommended that the Mandate be eventually abolished — except in a "corridor" surrounding Jerusalem, stretching to the Mediterranean Coast just south of Jaffa, Israel — and the land under its authority (and accordingly, the transfer of both Arab and Jewish populations) be apportioned between an Arab and Jewish states. The Jewish side was to receive a territorially smaller portion in the mid-west and north, from Mount Carmel to south of Be'er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee, while the Arab state was to receive territory in the south and mid-east which included Judea, Samaria and the sizable, though economically undeveloped and unfertile, Negev. The Arab leadership rejected the plan, while the Jewish opinion remained heatedly divided. The Twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich (3-16 August) announced ''that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted,'' [but wished] ''to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine.'' == References == ===Report of the Palestine Royal Commission=== *[http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL)] == See also == * Arab-Israeli conflict * 1922 Text: League of Nations Palestine Mandate * White Paper of 1939 * Shaw Report __NOTOC__ Israeli history Palestine Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine Arab
Peel Commission
== Added Peel Commission definition == I attempted to be concise and balanced, while avoiding ahistorical reductionism. I welcome educated opinion from all sides. Thanks. --User:El_C 18:01, 29 Aug 2004. * Reverted back to the original sentence structure. See my comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kahan_Commission here] for further details. Kept the ''Great Uprising'' addition though, which is both useful and important, and something I should have thought of. Thanks for that. User:El_C * Those additions are useful, well done. But please heed my request as per retaining the article's first paragraph. Also, again, please cease from Americanizing the dates, as a courtesy to the original author (me! ). User:El_C * Well, as soon as I posted it it was changed back to the original. I'm so confused. The additions were good in substance, but some of the the form was a bit lacking, to be honest. User:El_C :Please let me try to restore a few paragraphs you inadvertently (I hope :))) removed. As for the dates, AFAIK the format is (or should be) consistent throughout WP, or be configurable via prefs. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) * Okay, I revised your additions. Cursory revision, but I tried to give it serious attention. 1. Changed the dates back to British (which incidentally is what you will see if you actually read the ''Report of the Peel Commission'' ). English has both styles, it varies. A recently read a book by the former American Ambassador to Zambia, he uses the British style. I don't think it is appropriate for it to be a date competition, or worse, date competition-revision, from American to British or vice versa. It is all very silly. So once again, with all due respect, please do not change the dates in articles that I author to American style. I am accustomed to British, and it makes it easier for me to improve when reading my own words. 2. Some grammatical changes. Not many, most were minor. For example, ''projected''. The reader assumes that the reference is to a projected state, since s/he just read it being recommended by Lord Peel. Or ''flatly''. Either that flatly is qualified, or rejected (a pretty strong word in itself) is fine. The qualification is even more pressing for the Jewish side, as opinion was less unified, so I added an excerpt from the Ben Guryon's proposal adopted by the 20th Jewish Congress with respect to the Peel Partition [um, this sort of went into no.3 (content), sorry.]. 3. Most significantly, took out the period 1938-onwards. Those belong in another article(s). The Arabs rejected the Peel Partition and the 20th Jewish Congress said it was unacceptable but wanted further negotiations to ongo. And that's it for the Peel ''Commission.'' The Peel ''Partition'', for example, could be its own article. There, you could speak about the Woodhead Commission viz. and in relation to the Peel Partition. We are only noting here ''the reasons for'' - ''work done by'' - ''recommendations of'' - ''reactions of parties to'' - ''action taken or lack thereof''. User:El_C * Additional revision for the first paragraph. Took out outbreak and Palestinian Arabs and date for the Great Uprising. It was a ''Great'' uprising, we tell the reader, so either s/he knows about it or clicks the link and finds all about it. Less petinent to get into the Great Uprising while we are introducing the Peel Commission. Suffice that it is wikilinked and it is noted as ''the'' impetus. Simpler does not always mean less comprehensive (though, on the same token, nor does it always mean more lucid). User:El_C : I have moved the text into White Paper of 1939, which should have been created long ago. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 22:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) == The Jewish side was to receive a territorially smaller portion == The usual literally true but misleading Z------ slant. The numerically larger non-Jewish side was to receive the territorially larger but economically undesirable Negev.User:24.64.166.191 07:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC) :As the editor who authored that, I find it to be a good point. Please see my latest edit. But, it wasn't a Zionist slant, I just overlooked that, I'm not sure exactly why, but I was driven by no such motive, that would be antithetical to my worldview. User:El C 08:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Peel_Commission:
Peel_Commission
Peel_Commission
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
