Question about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When the Partitioning Plan of Palestine, 1948, was finished and put up for voting **was the Jewish state contiguous or was the Arab state contiguous? **

There seems to be 2 intersection point in which the Arab state divide the Jewish state into a total of three parts.

I just want to know if these parts were connected or were there tiny passages, like the one train passage I could see from a map on the intersection on the south part.

Neither or both. The sections of the Arab state and the sections of the Jewish state were laid out the way they were to connect the areas containing most of the Jewish population without isolating any part of either state. Hence, there are two “four corners” arrangements on the map, linked by extraterritorial crossroads administered by the UN. Since the plan was never implemented, things never got much more detailed than that.

Wikipedia has a map of the UN’s partition plan. Jerusalem would’ve been an international free city administered by the UN.

and how does that answer my question

I doubt they bothered to think about passages - nobody involved in the partition actually believed it would work. It was pure UN CYA.

This was the 1940’s, they had just done something in the Subcontinent 8 months earlier and Ireland a generation previously. This was their go to solution for everything back then.

Division of territories that is.

The map of course directly answers the “contiguous” question. The fact that Jerusalem was not intended to be part of either country possibly elaborates on the “how many pieces” question.

Presumably they planned to work out the details of the UN-controlled criss-crossings once the states were established in those borders and there were two governments to talk to.

The map itself is not at a fine enough scale to determine if one state or the other was “contiguous” at the intersection points. As the OP indicates, there could have been a small connection between one of the states that would make it contiguous while the other was not.

Nametag’s post indicates that since the crossing points would be extraterritorial, neither state would be contiguous (or, depending on how you looked at it, both would be.)

That makes me wonder - was there any thought to how Jerusalem would be managed in terms of deciding who would be allowed to live, work, and or enter Jerusalem? For example, would anybody have been able to mosey on in to Jerusalem perhaps subject only to an inspection to make sure that they were not carrying weapons or terrorist gear, or would there be a system of Jerusalem Permits that some people would get and some wouldn’t? If a permit system would have been used, was any thought given to exactly what the rules would be? For example, would permits be given out to anyone who met a defined set of criteria (e.g. no convictions for terrorism in the past ten years), or would there be a limited number of permits available that would be awarded preferentially to people with family and/or business ties to Jerusalem?

Not really, no. That’s basically what I said before - the UN dumped a map on the floor, shrugged and walked away. It had no real interest in actually implementing its plan.

I don’t think it was really UN disinterest that was the issue. When the Arab League rejected the entire idea of partition, there was no reason to put any effort into working out the details.