Is Israel "Stolen land"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

77% of British Mandate was lopped and made Jordan, no Jews allowed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian'.
Leaving the other 23% divided roughly 13-10 for the Jews.

Meaning the Arabs aka Palestinians got 87% of the Mandate.
(the Pink AND Red Areas)

And آ½ of the Jews 13% was the Negev Desert. (lower آ½ the light Blue Area above)
So Jews really got about 6% of the usable land of the Original Mandate..and about 1% of the Ottoman land.
(The arabs got 99% of the land and 100% of the resources.
If you want to keep breaking Arabs down into small sub-groups like the nonexistant-at-the-time 'palestinians', one can always find small injustice.)


AND unlike in the surrounding states... Arabs still live in/make up 20% of Current Israel's population within that land.
Had they not rejected the partition/started a war in 1948, They might even be a majority by now.

Also not seen on maps? 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land, passing from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews; owned by NO Arab.
This Includes the Half alone of Israel that was/Is the Negev Desert.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, the lower half of that little that red spot/Israel- is the Negev Desert, State Land under the Ottomans, owned by No Arab....and about 15-20% more that was also state land.
And 20% of the population of the upper half of the Red Dot- is Arab.

If you want to see True Injustice in regards the Ottoman Breakup, not a very few people moved a few miles, just Google Kudistan to see who got really screwed.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/kurdistan/kurdistan.gif


And yet there's no real cause- not even a mention before the Iraq War by "Human Rightsers".
Kurds a True People, Culture and lingual group; unlike 'Palestinians', Arab Sate # 23, and 'Palestinian' state #2.

I've always found it interesting/myopic/Suspect anglos who take up the 'palestinian cause'- to the exclusion of all other peoples and far larger injustices as above and Tibet- for another.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good presentation. It might even change a few minds here. But you know that most of the haters here have their minds made up already, and any info to back up the sane and right side is reduced as "Zionist propaganda".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The British should have just given the Arabs their land as promised through Lawrence of Arabia.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks otheadp.
But as you say facts rarely change minds.

But perhaps those reasonable people, or those who haven't yet made up their minds.. or those who've heard all the usual Trite Slanders but have no real facts or perspective.
So many grow up liberal hearing all these asinine/inapt terms like "Stolen" "Genocide" etc.
It's much more common than not in our very own academia.

If I post nothing else here I want to show people the true situation- and this does in a very Graphic way.
I took it vitually intact from my post on a Muslim board.
A board far less bigoted than Foley, I might add.

To S.A.M.: an educational response as you know Nothing. You have politics but no facts.
It was precisely the British promises to Lawrence, screwing others, like the Horribly conglomeration 'Iraq' that has lead to today's mess.

 

The Arabs’ grievance against Britain for her treatment of Egypt from 1882 to 1956 has been surpassed, in intensity and in justification, only by their grievance against us for our treatment of Palestine since 1917. In whatever way the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is to be interpreted – whatever may have been the meaning of “a national home for the Jewish people” and of “the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – we were taking it upon ourselves to give away something that was not ours to give. We were promising rights of some kind in the Palestinian Arabs’ country to a third party. We followed up the Balfour Declaration by insisting on our being given a mandate for the administration of Palestine, and also insisting on having the Balfour Declaration written into the document. At the same time we acquiesced in this mandate being placed in the “A” class, a type of mandate that committed the mandatory Power to giving independence to the population of the mandated territory as soon as they were politically ripe for it. Since, at that date, the population in Palestine west of Jordan was 90 per cent. Arab (in Transjordania the percentage was still higher), the fact that the mandate for Palestine was an “A” mandate was an implicit undertaking that, whatever the Balfour Declaration might mean, Palestine would eventually become an independent state with a decisive Arab majority in its population.

The Palestinian Arabs did not trust British intentions. We repeatedly assured them that our intentions towards them were entirely honourable and equitable. These British assurances that the Palestinian Arabs were going to receive fair treatment from us were only less numerous than our previous assurances that Egypt was going to be evacuated by us. We did eventually have to evacuate Palestine as well as Egypt: but we left Palestine in circumstances that brought upon the Palestinian Arabs a national calamity that has been greater than the worst that they had feared.

The responsibility for the tragedy that has overtaken the Palestinian Arabs is shared by Britain with Germany and the United States. In setting himself to exterminate the Jews in Europe, Hitler played into Zionism’s hands. The Zionists were now able to direct towards Palestine so great a Jewish urge to find refuge there that Britain lost control of the situation in Palestine. This, however, was mainly Britain’s own fault. We were taken at a disadvantage in this unexpected emergency because, from 1917 to 1933, we had deliberately refrained from making up our minds about how we were going to interpret the Balfour Declaration. The crucial question was: Were we going to set a maximum figure for Jewish immigration into Palestine, and, if we were, what was our figure going to be? Were the Jewish immigrants to be allowed to become a majority of the total population or not? We ought to have known our answer to this question before issuing the Balfour Declaration in 1917. We left it still unanswered when we were ejected from Palestine in 1948.

Even so, we might perhaps have saved the situation in Palestine in the 1930s, and so have saved the Arabs and the Jews from coming to blows with each other there, if we had replied to Hitler’s atrocious assault on the Jews in Germany by at once throwing the doors of our own country wide open to German Jewish refugees. In this emergency, Britain – and America too – opened her doors only just ajar, and this rather dilatorily and grudgingly. In this ungenerous response to the German Jews’ dire need we, like Hitler, played into the Zionists’ hands. The full force of the tide of Jewish emigration from Germany was now channelled towards Palestine. This was disastrous for the Palestinian Arabs, and it was also unfortunate for the Jewish refugees themselves.

If they had been given asylum in Britain and the United States – which could have been done without any awkward political, social or economic consequences for those two countries – they would have then obtained for themselves and for their descendants the lasting security that Israel seems unlikely ever to be able to give them.

America took upon herself a further share of the responsibility for the Palestine tragedy when President Truman forced the British Government’s hand after the end of the Second World War, at a moment when Britain was exhausted. Thus America’s responsibility, as well as Germany’s, is considerable. Yet, when their full share of the aggregate responsibility has been assigned to these two countries, Britain’s share remains incomparably greater than either of theirs. The Palestinian Arabs would never have been dispossessed, and the relations between Arabs and Jews would never have become so utterly hostile as they are today, if Britain had not made the series of moral errors and political blunders that she did make in her dealings with Palestine from 1917 to 1948.

Reference:Britain and the Arabs: The Need for a New Start, International Affairs, Vol 40, No 4, October 1964

 

Is there a response in there S.A.M?
For Christ sake, you didn't even highlight your copy-and-paste to point to the 'relevant' points.
Just a little Spaghetti at the wall.

 

Yes, it is stolen land.

Palestinians were there before, and then they were pushed aside for a Jewish state. I call that theft.

It doesn't matter if the Jews were given 1% or 100%, they took the land and it doesn't belong to them. Theft is theft. Arabs were there first, therefore ALL of the land is Arab.

So to answer your question, yes.

 

Jews were there first.

 

Actually Arab's were NOT there first.
Jews were there 2000 years before Mohammed was born.

Arabs weren't from anywhere but Arabia First.

It was until Aggressive Mohammedanism Swept them through the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe from the 7th-13th Centuries AD, that Arabs got to be from anywhere but the Arabian Peninsula, now Saudi Arabia.

And the Middle East and North Africa are still paying a Bloody price for that [continuing] conquest today-- in places like Lebanon (the native pre-Arab Christians, now mostly intermarried maronites); the Native Copts in Egypt, Two Genocides in Sudan by the Arabo-Spanish Govt/NIF; etc.

 

Palestinians are Arabised Arabs. Ethnically they are the same as the Jews. When I say Palestinians, it means the Palestinian peoples: Muslims, Christians AND Jews.

Anyway, the Israelis who were given the land were not natives.

Over 90% of the natives were Arabs

 

Then you can argue that many people, like the Americans, were not their first.


Also, remember the Christian conquests of Europe? Agressive Christianity did the same.

Paying the price? I, by definition, am not an Arab. I am Pheonician, but I consider myself an Arab. I'm not paying much price.


Anyway. Arabs were there first, since the conquests.


At 1948, it was Arabs inhabiting it.



But here is my point: why bitch about ancient land? After all, the Jews MIGHT have been there, but not for thousands of years.

What makes them think they can simply "return"? It's not their land anymore, it's ours. That's how it goes.

Why don't the Native Americans return to their land?

 

SAM HAS BROUGHT OUT SUCH A GOOD POINT!



Ok. The Jews weren't on the land first, nor ever. The Israelites, ethnic Hebrews, were on the land first.


The majority of Jews in Israel are of Slavic or European decent.

The majority of Palestinians were already on that land.



So those European Jews, WITH NO CLAIM TO THE LAND, can barge in and take it?

 

You act like they all came back at once. Jews had been coming back to Israel for hundreds of years, coinciding with European pogroms.

 

Of course they were. 2000 years ago is not 1948, so why do they think they can simply return?

Well of course, the same is true for anything. The same as agressive Christianity spreading throughout Europe by conquest, under Constantine.

And that's simply the thing. They were like that, but they conquered that land and now it's theirs. You could argue that Americans were nothing but the thirteen colonies, but it's not the same now.


So yes, a long time ago Arabs were on the Peninsula. After the Arab conquests, their land increased tremendously.

Already addressed in an earlier post.

 

Then they would be immigrating


But to take land and make their own state? That's pushing it too far.



And "coming back" is the wrong term. Israelites are not common anymore. And they are the only Jews that can "come back", since European Jews or Slavic Jews were never on the Holy Land. How can they "come back"?

 

So called Palestinians came back to Judea also around the same time. They were attracted to the area by the jobs the Jews created. Even European Jews that had never been there held Israel to be a holy land for them, like Mecca.

 

I love how you use the term "so-called", and you being a mod, that's pretty disrespectful.


Of course they were, but there are two flaws in that:

1) The Jews of Judea are not those inhabiting the land today

2) "Palestinians" weren't around at the time, at least not in the context I'm using. Palestinians were there during the Caliphates, and that's where they stayed until they were criminally pushed out in 1948.

 

Of course Israel would be a Holy Land for them, as it is for everyone.

That's not the point. But they have no claim to it. I have no claim to Mecca.
I can go and live there, but I can't say it's "my" land. It's Saudi land.

While the European Jews can make a pilgrimage and live in Palestine, the day they decided to become their own nation was the day it went too far.


Also, you speak as if it's no big deal. As small as the land is, the land they did get was already inhabited by Palestinians.

So those Palestinians would've been exiled and kicked out of their own land, their homes and property destroyed, and their legacy lost.

 

Not a good example; would it make sense for all Muslims to move to Mecca?

And yes, perhaps there was internal migration. But none intended to displace the existing natives.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

II. Israel / Palestine: Arab / Jewish Population (1914-2005)

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html

It would be like all the Palestinians being granted the Right of Return by the UN and coming home.


_______________________________

Sources & Notes:
Sources by Year:
1914 Justin McCarthy The Population of Palestine, 1990
1922 & 1931 British Census (Census conducted by the British Mandate Government.)
1941 Esco Foundation Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab, and British Policies Vol. 1, p.46, Yale University Press, 1947
# 1950 - 2005 Jewish population source: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS) "Statistical Abstract of Israel 2007: Population by district, sub-district and religion," ICBS website accessed on Sep. 20, 2007
# Arab population source (1950-1980): Justin McCarthy The Population of Palestine, 1990
# Arab Population within Israel (1995-2005): Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS) "Statistical Abstract of Israel 2007: Population by district, sub-district and religion," ICBS website accessed on Sep. 20, 2007
# Arab population source within West Bank and Gaza (1995-2005): U.S. Census Bureau "International Data Base (IDB), Country Summary: West Bank and Gaza Strip," accessed online Sep. 19, 2007
Notes:
* Decrease in the Arab population between 1960 and 1970 due to Arab refugees from the 1967 War.

 

Well said. The power behind these words, for me, is incredible!