NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally think that the entire Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and the Palestianins could have been easily avoided if the Palestianisns had accepted the 1947

http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1947partiton5zd.png

75% of the land given to the Jews was desert, and the majority of it had been bought up by the Jews a long time ago so it was Jewish land anyway. It seems very reasonable.

I personally think that the entire Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and the Palestianins could have been easily avoided if the Palestianisns had accepted the 1947

http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1947partiton5zd.png

75% of the land given to the Jews was desert, and the majority of it had been bought up by the Jews a long time ago so it was Jewish land anyway. It seems very reasonable.

The palestinians would never accept Israel's existence. They didn't back when it was isaac and Ishmael, they won't now.

I personally think that the entire Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and the Palestianins could have been easily avoided if the Palestianisns had accepted the 1947

http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1947partiton5zd.png

75% of the land given to the Jews was desert, and the majority of it had been bought up by the Jews a long time ago so it was Jewish land anyway. It seems very reasonable.

No, because it was only when the arabs rejected the plan and invaded Israel that they showed their true colors, the bastards.

Who would have though Israel turned out to be the winner.:D

Bit of a shock to them back in the arab middle east, eh?:p

I personally think that the entire Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and the Palestianins could have been easily avoided if the Palestianisns had accepted the 1947

http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1947partiton5zd.png

75% of the land given to the Jews was desert, and the majority of it had been bought up by the Jews a long time ago so it was Jewish land anyway. It seems very reasonable.
It definately would have been to their advantage to do so. Unfortunately, that opportunity is utterly buried, and they only stand to regain a fraction of what could have been theirs. No use cryingover spilled milk though - there is a bright future that we can al work towards.

I just think there are a great many comparisons to be made to this rejection and the rejection of the Clinton-Barrack proposals, which were simmilar in reasonableness.

The interests of the Palestians have never been a consideration for their leaders, or any Arab leaders, the war furthered the power of the Arab leaders over their own peoples and the Palestinians.

Their unwillingness to cooperate w/ Israel only hurts Palestinians. It's been this way for 58 years and they still haven't gotten it.

Exactly. This drive to wipe out the Isralies and Israel is what has kept this conflict going, not Israel.

I personally think that the entire Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and the Palestianins could have been easily avoided if the Palestianisns had accepted the 1947

http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1947partiton5zd.png

75% of the land given to the Jews was desert, and the majority of it had been bought up by the Jews a long time ago so it was Jewish land anyway. It seems very reasonable.
I agree.

I personally think that the entire Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and the Palestianins could have been easily avoided if the Palestianisns had accepted the 1947

http://img336.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1947partiton5zd.png

75% of the land given to the Jews was desert, and the majority of it had been bought up by the Jews a long time ago so it was Jewish land anyway. It seems very reasonable.

I agree they should have accepted it but then, we all know that Yassar Arafat was a terrorist that wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.

This is strange. I have only heard logical (and, well, true) comments here. This is highly unusual for the General forums, especially on an issue like this.

Maybe they would have benefitted... how does criticising them for choosing a different path over 50 years ago help the current situation? A better solution might be to find a way to stop religions from ever existing in the first place so that instead of Isralies and Arabs there would be humans, but this is also an unattainable goal.
A much better thing to ask would be "what can be done now to help the situation in Israel/Palestine"... unfortunately the answer to that is most likely very little since I doubt many of us are actually major political leaders (though I have been wrong in the past.)

This is strange. I have only heard logical (and, well, true) comments here. This is highly unusual for the General forums, especially on an issue like this.

What the hell is going on?

*Runs screaming*

What have you done to the forums? Pod people....pod people....everywhere...

Just to throw a little gas on this discussion--why should the Palestinians have accepted any partition whatsoever? What gave the UN the right to dispropriate the rightful owners of any of that land?

I'm by no means saying that we ought to go back and undo what was done then--there are lots of people who have grown up knowing Israel as their only home--but let's not act as though there weren't people who were completely and totally shat upon in this deal, and that those people were the ones who got pushed out of their homes so the west could assuage their consciences and act like they hadn't been anti-semitic all along. There are no angels in this whole debate.

I can't blame Palestinian Arabs for rejecting the partition plan under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947, because on paper it was so inequitable.

The partition plan allocated about 56 percent (5,893 square miles) of the territory of Mandatory Palestine to the proposed Jewish state, even though Jewish corporate and individual landholdings throughout Palestine at the time totalled no more than 8.6 percent.

If those areas deemed unfit for cultivation (such as the Negev) are excluded, the Jewish state was still awarded roughly 25 percent of the total territory of Palestine; and in those areas awarded to the Jewish state, less than one-third of the land was under Jewish ownership. In none of the twelve sub-districts that were wholly or partially allocated to the Jewish state - Beersheba, Gaza, Hebron, Ramleh, Tulkarm, Jaffa, Haifa, Jenin, Nazareth, Beisan, Tiberias, Safad - did Jewish land ownership exceed 39 percent (the highest proportion being in Jaffa); the average was only 29 percent.

In terms of population, the split might not have seemed so inequitable: a sub-committee of UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) found in June-July 1947 that there were 1,237,332 Arabs (51 percent) and 608,225 Jews (49 percent) in Palestine. However, it's small wonder that Palestinian Arabs opposed the giving away by an unelected international body of more than half of what they saw as their country to people who owned less than one-tenth of it - 15 percent of whom had lived there since only the last ten years. Moreover, 45 percent (407,000) of the proposed Jewish state would be Arab; by contrast, only about 1.4 percent (10,000) of the proposed Arab state would be Jews.

The partition plan included proposals for economic union between the Arab and Jewish states. It had to, because it was recognised that partition would leave the Arabs considerably worse off. As the UNSCOP report to the UN General Asembly admitted: "In the case of the plan for the partition of Palestine recommended in this report, as well as in the case of all previous partition plans which have been suggested, it is the viability of the Arab State that is in doubt." UNSCOP estimates for 1947-1948 calculated that in the first year, partition would cost the Jewish state 3.54m Palestine pounds and the Arab state 7.76m. Under the Committee's recommendations, later built into Resolution 181, almost the whole of the citrus-growing area of Palestine - together with its revenue-earning export potential - would be given to the Jewish state.

The irony was that much of the money the proposed Arab state would lose under partition was Jewish money: as the Peel Commission report of 1937 put it,
"The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews."

This put the Palestinian Arabs in a Catch-22 situation: they could not afford to get rid of Jews in Palestine, but neither could they afford to let them have their own state.

Just to throw a little gas on this discussion--why should the Palestinians have accepted any partition whatsoever? What gave the UN the right to dispropriate the rightful owners of any of that land?


The reason being that the Jews had bought most of that land. Bought it off either absentee landlords or Arab pesents, way back in the early 20th century and had built their communities on the land that they fairly purchased. Here's just a response to the useual claim that the Jews stole the land from the Arab's

MYTH

"Jews stole Arab land."

FACT
Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al*Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:

It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original).

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el*Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.

Its a very strange equation but best i can tell... A) Israel keeps land and Palastinians and Jews both die in 3s and 4s in bombings and reprisals or B) Give Palestinians all the land they ask for and stand and watch as they all shoot each other. Hamas and Fata will do a far more effective job of killing fellow Palestinian militants then Isreael could dream of.

I can't blame Palestinian Arabs for rejecting the partition plan under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947, because on paper it was so inequitable.

The partition plan allocated about 56 percent (5,893 square miles) of the territory of Mandatory Palestine to the proposed Jewish state, even though Jewish corporate and individual landholdings throughout Palestine at the time totalled no more than 8.6 percent.

If those areas deemed unfit for cultivation (such as the Negev) are excluded, the Jewish state was still awarded roughly 25 percent of the total territory of Palestine; and in those areas awarded to the Jewish state, less than one-third of the land was under Jewish ownership. In none of the twelve sub-districts that were wholly or partially allocated to the Jewish state - Beersheba, Gaza, Hebron, Ramleh, Tulkarm, Jaffa, Haifa, Jenin, Nazareth, Beisan, Tiberias, Safad - did Jewish land ownership exceed 39 percent (the highest proportion being in Jaffa); the average was only 29 percent.

In terms of population, the split might not have seemed so inequitable: a sub-committee of UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) found in June-July 1947 that there were 1,237,332 Arabs (51 percent) and 608,225 Jews (49 percent) in Palestine. However, it's small wonder that Palestinian Arabs opposed the giving away by an unelected international body of more than half of what they saw as their country to people who owned less than one-tenth of it - 15 percent of whom had lived there since only the last ten years. Moreover, 45 percent (407,000) of the proposed Jewish state would be Arab; by contrast, only about 1.4 percent (10,000) of the proposed Arab state would be Jews.

The partition plan included proposals for economic union between the Arab and Jewish states. It had to, because it was recognised that partition would leave the Arabs considerably worse off. As the UNSCOP report to the UN General Asembly admitted: "In the case of the plan for the partition of Palestine recommended in this report, as well as in the case of all previous partition plans which have been suggested, it is the viability of the Arab State that is in doubt." UNSCOP estimates for 1947-1948 calculated that in the first year, partition would cost the Jewish state 3.54m Palestine pounds and the Arab state 7.76m. Under the Committee's recommendations, later built into Resolution 181, almost the whole of the citrus-growing area of Palestine - together with its revenue-earning export potential - would be given to the Jewish state.

The irony was that much of the money the proposed Arab state would lose under partition was Jewish money: as the Peel Commission report of 1937 put it,

This put the Palestinian Arabs in a Catch-22 situation: they could not afford to get rid of Jews in Palestine, but neither could they afford to let them have their own state.

So rare to meet one who knows what the fuck they're on about. I salute you Sir/Madam.

The reason being that the Jews had bought most of that land. Bought it off either absentee landlords or Arab pesents, way back in the early 20th century and had built their communities on the land that they fairly purchased. Here's just a response to the useual claim that the Jews stole the land from the Arab's

Absolute nonsense. The survey that led to the Partition proposal doesnt say that but does contain the information contained in Dongaras post. I think you're in denial.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/102-7534290-0000969?n=283155

No, it was incredibly stupid for them to have rejected it. But the Jews most certainly did not own the majority of the land they received in the Partition Plan.

The palestinians would never accept Israel's existence. They didn't back when it was isaac and Ishmael, they won't now.

If you're going to reference the Bible, at least get it right. It was Sarah, Isaac's mother, who couldn't stand Hagar, Ishmael's mother, and thus convinced Abraham (with God's aid) to expel the two and send them into the wilderness. Ishmael was not at all at fault.

The palestinians would never accept Israel's existence. They didn't back when it was isaac and Ishmael, they won't now.

The vast majority of palestinians accepted it by voting massively for the Fatah on many elections, while the Fatah did recognize Israel's existence, and even accepted the "green line".

But since Sharon and his friends continued to colonize Palestin, built their illegal walls, destroy houses, schools and hospitals, kill thousands, ... they finally got tired. Not surprising...

I agree they should have accepted it but then, we all know that Yassar Arafat was a terrorist that wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.

Don't forget Arafat was a leader who convinced his people to forget 78% of the land they were once claiming. But even that was not enough for Sharon and his friends, and they continued to build new colonies...

The reason being that the Jews had bought most of that land. Bought it off either absentee landlords or Arab pesents, way back in the early 20th century and had built their communities on the land that they fairly purchased. Here's just a response to the useual claim that the Jews stole the land from the Arab'sEven if you're right--and from the looks of other posts on this thread, that's very much in dispute--it still doens't negate the fact that some Palestinians were going to be displaced against their will. So again, why should they accept that willingly? Who would?

my family, along with plenty of their friends were kicked out of their homes in palestine. they had everything they owned taken away from them, all their money was taken away from them, wives, daughters, sisters were raped, and they were sent to live in camps were they were treated like slaves. they were forced to live under disgusting conditions just so some jewish families could have a nice place to live...a roof over their heads. you wonder why this war is going on for so long? its not because the palestinians want to erase israelies from the face of the earth, and im not sure, but i dont think its because the israelies want to kill off all the palestinians. its still going on for the same reason most other wars continue...its all politics. power-hungry politicians. and maybe, just maybe, its because when people are treated like shit for so long, they just get tired of it and do whatever they can to change it. i dont know, you tell me. if someone took everything that you ever knew, everything you worked your entire life for, wouldn't you do whatever you could to try and get it back?

oh and that was when the proposal was being entertained

*snip*

So how is blowing yourself up to kill innocent men, women, AND CHILDREN accomplishing the goal? How is starting 2 wars and instigating a third (building up to attack) and losing all 3 wars accomplish your goal of getting everything back? It hasn't worked then and it isn't working now.

Better to have something than to have nothing. They should've accepted the partition line instead of going on a terroristic rampage that has cause many deaths and much suffering.

Better to have something than to have nothing. They should've accepted the partition line instead of going on a terroristic rampage that has cause many deaths and much suffering.


and everything the israeli army is doing and the israelies are doing is just considered what exactly my dear? im not saying that the killing of innocent people is right and in no way do i support it. but you have to be honest with yourself, the palestinians are not the only ones involving innocent standbyers here. its not so black and white as you seem to be portraying it....

Even if you're right--and from the looks of other posts on this thread, that's very much in dispute--it still doens't negate the fact that some Palestinians were going to be displaced against their will. So again, why should they accept that willingly? Who would?

They wern't going to be displaced. When Israel was created the Jewish government asked the Palestinans to stay in there homes. The only reason they left was because of the war. The Isralie government, after the war, said to the Palestianins that they could return if they accepted the following three things
- To become Isralie citizens
- To renounce viloence
- To become peaceful and productive citizens
And about 150,000 Palestinans accepted those terms.

and everything the israeli army is doing and the israelies are doing is just considered what exactly my dear? im not saying that the killing of innocent people is right and in no way do i support it. but you have to be honest with yourself, the palestinians are not the only ones involving innocent standbyers here. its not so black and white as you seem to be portraying it....

Refresh my memory but the Israeli Army does try not to harm civilians when they are battling those that are blowing up her civilians. Granted, Israel is not blameless in this whole thing. They have done things that deserves condemnation. Both sides need to talk this out but one side doesn't seem to want to talk. Hopefully they can settle the issue but Arafat should've accepted the deal that was offered to him.

my family, along with plenty of their friends were kicked out of their homes in palestine. they had everything they owned taken away from them, all their money was taken away from them, wives, daughters, sisters were raped, and they were sent to live in camps were they were treated like slaves. they were forced to live under disgusting conditions just so some jewish families could have a nice place to live...a roof over their heads.


Rashidya, with all due respect, no ones wives, daughters, or sisters were raped by any members of the Haganah or when they later became the IDF. Most of the Palestinian Arabs living in what was then the Mandate of Palestine considered themselves Syrians and left in various waves of both leading up to and during Israel's war of Independance (or as I like to call it, their war of survival). The first to leave were the more affluent "effendi" and were followed by the fellaheen. The only Arabs that were forced to leave by the IDF were in such villages as Lydda and Ramleh. The only reason they were forced to leave by the Haganah was for strategic reasons; being that these villages surrounded Jewish populations of over 100,000 Jews who risked being murdered by the invading Arab armies OR the Haganah needed certain villages as strategic points to defend the road leading to Jewish Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Without maintaining those positions, those Jews living there would have been slaughtered. Once again, the Jews did not take over their property but welcomed them back to return as was mentioned in a previous post.

As for your mention of the "camps" that they were placed in, they were not placed in these camps by Jews; rather they were put there by the Arab countries that they were settled in. The only ones keeping the Palestinians living in squalor and filth is their own Arab "brothers." This is continuing till this day in these same refugee camps as Egypt in the '79 peace accords with Israel did not take Gaza in that deal so that they would not have to deal with them.

An interesting fact that many choose to ignore is the fate of the more than ONE MILLION Jews that became refugees between 1947 and 1954 after THEY were stripped of all their belongings and property and forced to leave their native Middle Eastern Muslim countries. These refugees however were integrated into Israeli society and overcame their problems by becoming citizens of the only democracy and the freest nation in the Middle East. The Palestinian refugees however, were not afforded that right by their fellow Arab brothers with the exception of Jordan. The other Palestinian refugees, had they stayed, would have become Israeli citizens and afforded more rights than any Arab living anywhere else in the Middle East.

My deepest sympathies go out to the Palestinian people who for 58 years have been used as pawns and bargaining chips by their corrupt leaders in their continuing propoganda war against the Jewish state.

Rashidya, with all due respect, no ones wives, daughters, or sisters were raped by any members of the Haganah or when they later became the IDF. Most of the Palestinian Arabs living in what was then the Mandate of Palestine considered themselves Syrians and left in various waves of both leading up to and during Israel's war of Independance (or as I like to call it, their war of survival). The first to leave were the more affluent "effendi" and were followed by the fellaheen. The only Arabs that were forced to leave by the IDF were in such villages as Lydda and Ramleh. The only reason they were forced to leave by the Haganah was for strategic reasons; being that these villages surrounded Jewish populations of over 100,000 Jews who risked being murdered by the invading Arab armies OR the Haganah needed certain villages as strategic points to defend the road leading to Jewish Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Without maintaining those positions, those Jews living there would have been slaughtered. Once again, the Jews did not take over their property but welcomed them back to return as was mentioned in a previous post.

As for your mention of the "camps" that they were placed in, they were not placed in these camps by Jews; rather they were put there by the Arab countries that they were settled in. The only ones keeping the Palestinians living in squalor and filth is their own Arab "brothers." This is continuing till this day in these same refugee camps as Egypt in the '79 peace accords with Israel did not take Gaza in that deal so that they would not have to deal with them.

An interesting fact that many choose to ignore is the fate of the more than ONE MILLION Jews that became refugees between 1947 and 1954 after THEY were stripped of all their belongings and property and forced to leave their native Middle Eastern Muslim countries. These refugees however were integrated into Israeli society and overcame their problems by becoming citizens of the only democracy and the freest nation in the Middle East. The Palestinian refugees however, were not afforded that right by their fellow Arab brothers with the exception of Jordan. The other Palestinian refugees, had they stayed, would have become Israeli citizens and afforded more rights than any Arab living anywhere else in the Middle East.

My deepest sympathies go out to the Palestinian people who for 58 years have been used as pawns and bargaining chips by their corrupt leaders in their continuing propoganda war against the Jewish state.

Well said Greater Valinor. Well said indeed.

And welcome to Nation States :)

Excellent post just above. Glad to see someone mentioning the Jewish refugee issue.

Firstly the land did not belong to the Jews. It was Palestinian land.

Secondly, the land delegated to the Jews happens to surround the sources to water that this very dry area has to offer.

Third, how would you feel (yanks!!!!) if the UN decided that the only way to resolve the middle east conflict, would be to move the state of Israel to, hmmm, let me think.... California (nice part of the states, doesn't get hit be hurricanes that the USA help so much to cause). Of course, no americans can live here, so they have to leave their homes and land to move somewhere where there are already limited resources.

Can you perhaps put yourself in the position of the palestinians when their homes (to this day) are still being bulldozed under the justification that they think terrorists may be lurking.

Israel constantly ignore the Geneva Conventions protection of non-combatants such as women, children, the elderly etc. and they should be on the moral highground seeing as they have the resources to do so.

Palestinians are driven to use such desperate measures due to a lack of resources.

When will the Yanks wake up to reality and stop sponsoring/supporting those who aggrivate matters?:upyours:

No, because it was only when the arabs rejected the plan and invaded Israel that they showed their true colors, the bastards.

Who would have though Israel turned out to be the winner.:D

Bit of a shock to them back in the arab middle east, eh?:p


Indeed. They wanted war, they got a war. And lost it.

Serves those devils just right.

I agree they should have accepted it but then, we all know that Yassar Arafat was a terrorist that wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.


I didn't know that it was Arafat who rejected the 1947 plan?

I didn't know that it was Arafat who rejected the 1947 plan?

So you're saying he favoured it?
Or it is just that you don't know?

So you're saying he favoured it?
Or it is just that you don't know?


I was suggesting that the assertion was incorrect. Does everything have to be spelled out FFS?

I was suggesting that the assertion was incorrect. Does everything have to be spelled out FFS?

*head askew*
Not at all.
The thing is that trying to quibble over what Arafat rejected on paper when the matter is that he was just another terrorist, who is now ancient history, does somehow suggest that you're trying to get him of the hook.

Those who argue that the devil ain't as bad as people say are friends of the devil.

Capiche?

'Course,Israel is a saint compared to it's Arab neighbors.We should invade them all and force them to become serfs.Or better yet,hand them over to Israel and rebuild the temple of Solomon in Mecca!you know,just to be bastards.

*Sarcasm is over now*

But seriously,it's not like any of the people in the Israeli government are helping the peace process in Palestine.For god's sake...Their last elected leader was an international terrorist.And I'm not calling hims names or anything.He literally was a terrorist.He was in the Stern Gang,and bombed a couple of British Embassies in Europe.But of course,he's still a good guy,you know...cause he's Jewish and white and all that jazz.Sorry,sarcasm is receding.Excuse me.

The Jews had,and still do not have, no right to declare a new government in Palestine.A jewish community is fine,and even immersing into the country would be spectacular,but a Jewish dominated government that claiming all that land.Yes,I am aware part of it was bought by indivisuals.I'm sure at the time it was a good idea.

Besides,any time anyone says,"Well,g0d pr0mis3d us the land!ROFL!!@112",the other party usually can say,"n0,y0u're wrong,biatch!111shift1!Gud pr0mised us the land!"

That usually leads to a rather inconclusive arguement.Not saying either side is right.

It's also true that the Arabs lost the war,but Israel does not necessarily have a moral right.They won,true,but it's not like "Oh,they won,they must be right."

Just a minor rant of mine.*Prepares to get flamed*

And why should they ( the Israeli's) help?

Arabs start war. And lose war.
If they want peace, they can start with Unconditional Surrender.

And why should they ( the Israeli's) help?

Arabs start war. And lose war.
If they want peace, they can start with Unconditional Surrender.

Interesting.Is the issue that simple in your mind?

Arabs started war because Israel declared itself a new nation without anyone's support,in an Arab country(palestine),during a time of gushing arab nationalism.They assembled a coalition and invaded.They lost.Doesn't mean that Israel's claim is correct.Doesn't mean the arabs went the right way about it,either,but hey...Life's a bitch.

With hindsight it would have probably been better to strike a deal early.

Meh.

I can still understand why both sides did what they did at the start though.

Quite honestly i think the Palestinians are full of shit. In 2000, they were offered almost all they asked for and said no out of hand and Arafat didnt even offer a counter plan. Because frankly as we are seeing now, the Palestinains cant not have a common enemy to rally against cause then they will just shoot each other instead. The Palestinians are a bunch of dangerous children with guns bent on killing regardless of if its Jews or other Palistinans that just dont happen to agree with the flavor of thier particular beliefs. Consider, in year 2000 offers from Israel.....

giveing Palestinians 97% of the territories (the PA already controlled 40% of the territories, containing 97% of the Palestinian population of the territories), with the remaining few percent to be made up with land in the Negev connected to the Gaza Strip. DENIED with no counter offer




to give Palestinians military control of eastern Jerusalem and even parts of the Old City. Administrative control of the Temple Mount, which overlooks the Western Wall, was also offered. This despite that the Temple Mount is Judaism's holiest site, and despite the occurrences of rocks being thrown by Muslims from the Temple Mount at Jews praying at the Wall. DENIED with no counter offer
Israel was willing to allow many Palestinian refugees to return to Israel through family reunification, as well as giving compensation to those refugees who couldn't return. DENIED with no counter offer.

Palestinains dont WANT peace. The fact that Palestinians have a common enemy is the ONLY thing that keeps them even remotely bound as a single political entity and is the ONLY thing that keeps the Palestinains from degrading into complete lawlessness and and anarchy.

I didn't know that it was Arafat who rejected the 1947 plan?

Well he was theone the rejected it.

*head askew*
Not at all.
The thing is that trying to quibble over what Arafat rejected on paper when the matter is that he was just another terrorist, who is now ancient history, does somehow suggest that you're trying to get him of the hook.

Those who argue that the devil ain't as bad as people say are friends of the devil.

Capiche?


I think you've completely misread this.

Arafat was 18 years old in 1947 and was hardly in a position to reject the plan proposed at the time. This is exactly what Corneliu suggested in his post and is the basic fact which I subsequently questioned.

Saying "Capiche?" makes you sound like a c*nt.

Well he was theone the rejected it.


Are you sure about that?

Firstly the land did not belong to the Jews. It was Palestinian land.

Only partly right but not 100% right.

Secondly, the land delegated to the Jews happens to surround the sources to water that this very dry area has to offer.

And yet they were living somewhat peacefully until the Arabs decided to start the war in the Late 1940s

Third, how would you feel (yanks!!!!) if the UN decided that the only way to resolve the middle east conflict, would be to move the state of Israel to, hmmm, let me think....

Since that would be illegal since Israel has an established border, Army, currency, and government, you cannot move the state of Israel. Besides, Israel will fight that and so would the United States.



This better be sarcasm.

[quote]Of course, no americans can live here, so they have to leave their homes and land to move somewhere where there are already limited resources.

Pardone? What are you talking about?

Can you perhaps put yourself in the position of the palestinians when their homes (to this day) are still being bulldozed under the justification that they think terrorists may be lurking.

Actually, they only bulldoze the homes of those who have committed terrorist acts or if smuggler tunnels were found under their homes.

Israel constantly ignore the Geneva Conventions protection of non-combatants such as women, children, the elderly etc. and they should be on the moral highground seeing as they have the resources to do so.

*dies of laughter*

Palestinians are driven to use such desperate measures due to a lack of resources.

HAHA! Oh brother. If the arabs got off their butts, the Palastinians wouldn't be in the position they are in now. Since this is mostly the arabs fault for not doing anything to help them.....

When will the Yanks wake up to reality and stop sponsoring/supporting those who aggrivate matters?:upyours:

When will you anti-semites wake up to reality and stop sponsering terrorist groups who have pledged to destroy Israel/wipe out the jews?

Firstly the land did not belong to the Jews. It was Palestinian land.

Flaw 1

It wasnt Palestinain land for two reasons. One is that the Jews had bought it off the absente landlords and pesants who owned the land at that time. It was a perfectly legitmate legal transaction. The second reason is that there was no such thing as the Palestianians. Nor was there any such thing as 'Palestine'. There was southen Syria, which is what that territory was known as previously, but there was no seperate group of people called Palestianians. That didn't come about untill after the state of Israel was created.


Secondly, the land delegated to the Jews happens to surround the sources to water that this very dry area has to offer.

Proof please

Flaw 2

Since 75% of the land given to the Isralies under the original Partition plan was desert, I doubt your argument.


Third, how would you feel (yanks!!!!) if the UN decided that the only way to resolve the middle east conflict, would be to move the state of Israel to, hmmm, let me think.... California (nice part of the states, doesn't get hit be hurricanes that the USA help so much to cause). Of course, no americans can live here, so they have to leave their homes and land to move somewhere where there are already limited resources.

Flaw 3

When Israel was created, the Isralie government said to the Arabs who were living there that they could stay in there homes. They did not want to move them out. The Arabs left volentarly because of the war, which the other Arab states around them started. When the war was over with the Jews victorious, the Isralie government passed a law allowing the refugees back if
- They became Isralie citizens
- They renounced violence
- They became peaceful and productive citizens


Can you perhaps put yourself in the position of the palestinians when their homes (to this day) are still being bulldozed under the justification that they think terrorists may be lurking.

Flaw 4

You assume that desperation drives people to terrorism. This is not the case. The worlds most wanted terrorist is an oil muliti-millionare, he is not desperate. The position is that if the Palesitinans wish for a better situation they should as a whole do more to demonstrate the fact that they do not tollerate terrorism against Israel. Once they show this and behave peacefully the ocupation will end. The only reason it continues is to stop it attacking Isralie mainland.

'Course,Israel is a saint compared to it's Arab neighbors.We should invade them all and force them to become serfs.Or better yet,hand them over to Israel and rebuild the temple of Solomon in Mecca!you know,just to be bastards.

*Sarcasm is over now*

But seriously,it's not like any of the people in the Israeli government are helping the peace process in Palestine.For god's sake...Their last elected leader was an international terrorist.And I'm not calling hims names or anything.He literally was a terrorist.He was in the Stern Gang,and bombed a couple of British Embassies in Europe.But of course,he's still a good guy,you know...cause he's Jewish and white and all that jazz.Sorry,sarcasm is receding.Excuse me.

The Jews had,and still do not have, no right to declare a new government in Palestine.A jewish community is fine,and even immersing into the country would be spectacular,but a Jewish dominated government that claiming all that land.Yes,I am aware part of it was bought by indivisuals.I'm sure at the time it was a good idea.


You clearly have no knowledge of the history or the situation. Yes Sharon may have been a terrorist in the past, but you seem to forget, so was Nelson Mandella.

The Jews do have many and various reasons to set up a government in the region of Palestine, largely because they have all the forms of soveringty nessecary. Yes it was bought by individuals and no the indiginous population was not forceably removed.

I think you've completely misread this.

Arafat was 18 years old in 1947 and was hardly in a position to reject the plan proposed at the time. This is exactly what Corneliu suggested in his post and is the basic fact which I subsequently questioned.

Saying "Capiche?" makes you sound like a c*nt.

Oh relax. I was thinking of the peace accords that Arafat rejected that would've given back most of the land taken in the 3 wars.

Oh relax. I was thinking of the peace accords that Arafat rejected that would've given back most of the land taken in the 3 wars.

Don't patronise me.

I'm sorry your ignorance has been exposed.

Don't patronise me.

I'm sorry your ignorance has been exposed.

Oh I'm sorry that I was having fun at your expense. :rolleyes:

Alright, here's how it is for the Americans. Imagine if we came into the New World at which WE colonized, and WE eventually allowed everyone the world over to take into our possession from the local Native populace. Let's say they didn't die of disease, or labor camps, or wars, or from being driven off their hunter gathering routes(which usually stayed the same for centuries undisturbed). Well anyway, we become rich off their land, and there's about a million of them and 650,000 colonists(much more of them actually). Accepting how different they were than the Western peoples, of course there's going to be some demand of compensation. Things just went about differently in our case because we simply killed off any competition saying it wasn't our land to take...oh yeah, we also knew there was gold over here.

Now what about the Uk, with the Irish lands being vied for by the British in the North. Personally with things the way they are nowadays, call it resistance and blow it up. When you have a supplier with massive Jet, munitions, tank, and weapon production like in the US of A - on your side, or to say the next option - has the ability to pay the debt off, then you can produce an awesome military force. It's just the Arabs, as much revenue they make off of oil, it would be much too costly to invest in military projects while the oversea consumer tries and take a cut out of the oil money.

No, I'm not saying this to correct anything on what you've guys already said, but I feel if you want to understand the nature of things, than technically "strapping a bomb to yourself" and killing innocents in the process is no different than driving an iron clad cannon into a city suburb which was once full of children running around in the streets, and is now a war zone...
It's because they can't afford the expensive gun nests, and helicopters, and air force, that they pay with their given lives just to show they disagree with the enemy. And if that makes your stomach turn, then try to turn to the politicians on the Israeli side - haven't you asked something of someone before and they made no expression or any care to help you out? Well, it just gets more complicated than that. The Palestinians want their bread, and it just so happens the guy with their bread is a Father-in-law, not a Papa.

I think you've completely misread this.

Arafat was 18 years old in 1947 and was hardly in a position to reject the plan proposed at the time. This is exactly what Corneliu suggested in his post and is the basic fact which I subsequently questioned.

Saying "Capiche?" makes you sound like a c*nt.


Ah, he was too young to simply say yes.

I still think your are trying to make Arafat come out as something better than the utterly loathsome chap with the Hitler-picture on his desk, praising the misunderstood 'genius' of the Third Reich, as interviewed by Oriana Fallaci in 1982.

Ah, he was too young to simply say yes.


He was nowhere near the Arab decision-making power in 1947, the point is irrelevant.


I still think your are trying to make Arafat come out as something better than the utterly loathsome chap with the Hitler-picture on his desk, praising the misunderstood 'genius' of the Third Reich, as interviewed by Oriana Fallaci in 1982.


I have said absolutely nothing about Arafat so please explain how you have come to this conclusion.

Interesting.Is the issue that simple in your mind?

Arabs started war because Israel declared itself a new nation without anyone's support,in an Arab country(palestine),during a time of gushing arab nationalism.They assembled a coalition and invaded.They lost.Doesn't mean that Israel's claim is correct.Doesn't mean the arabs went the right way about it,either,but hey...Life's a bitch.


Arab country? excuse me, but Palestine never was a country and is still not a country (the Arabs rejected creating a Palestinian state), however that land was renamed Palestine after the Ottoman Empire was dissolved following WWI. It was renamed Palestine by the British (a name that was first given to the land by the Romans because of the Phillistines). Palestine was British Mandate at the time Israel was established by UN partition in 1947, NOT an "Arab country." After the breakup of the Empire there were Jews living in the former Ottoman empire as well as Arabs and Jewish immigration had been happening since the late 19th century. There was no Jewish "invasion."

Another interesting fact, the British in the early 20th century issued a little something called the Balfour Declaration which "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". Another point is that in 1922, the country of Transjordan was created within 80% of the Palestine Mandate (all land east of the Jordan River; what is present day Jordan). The Jordanian King Abdullah wasnt even a native of there, just a Saudi who lost out in becoming the ruler there. So, the last 20% of the originial Mandate was left for the Jewish state but was further divided to make ANOTHER arab state out of the Mandate. Then: Arabs rejected that plan, invaded the new State of Israel with hopes of annihilation and then expelled the more than ONE MILLION Jews living throughout the Muslim countries in the Middle East. The Jews and the state of Israel have never turned away from a legitimate offer of peace. As the saying goes: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Once again, if those joining the post would simply catch up on the last few pages they might learn something instead of just repeating the same lies.

They wern't going to be displaced. When Israel was created the Jewish government asked the Palestinans to stay in there homes. The only reason they left was because of the war. The Isralie government, after the war, said to the Palestianins that they could return if they accepted the following three things
- To become Isralie citizens
- To renounce viloence
- To become peaceful and productive citizens
And about 150,000 Palestinans accepted those terms.

Untrue as has been pointed out to you before. Part of the refugees that Israel proposed accepting were to come with the territory of Gaza. Thats hardly "taking back".


Refresh my memory but the Israeli Army does try not to harm civilians .
And behold - the sanctimonious denier did appear. Explain these.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm

http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html


Most of the Palestinian Arabs living in what was then the Mandate of Palestine considered themselves Syrians .

According to all the other apologists its "Jordanians". While I appreciate your independence of spirit, its still untrue.



The only reason they were forced to leave by the Haganah was for strategic reasons; .

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (David Ben Gurion, 1937)

Same tired lies every time.

Why did the Irgun kill 9 nine people (including Women and children) in al-'Abbasiyya on Dec 13th 1947, when there was no fighting in the Area?

Why was it razed to the ground in may of 1948?


Once again, the Jews did not take over their property but welcomed them back to return as was mentioned in a previous post..

A sense of humour too, I see.

The town of Indur had a population of 10,000 or so Arabs. After the inhabitants fled, the Israeli forces demolished it. Why would they do this if they were waiting for them to return?

http://www.jalili48.com/pub/EN_ShowGallary.asp?GName=What_Remained_of_the_destroyed&SuName=Ndoor

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (David Ben Gurion, "Eretz Yisrael)


An interesting fact that many choose to ignore is the fate of the more than ONE MILLION Jews that became refugees between 1947 and 1954 after THEY were stripped of all their belongings and property ..

Between 1947 and 1967. A dreadful act of thuggery. They, however, had at least a state to go to, though Israel might well treat them better.


These refugees however were integrated into Israeli society ..

Even today, theres discrimination against Sephradic Jews. Never try to paint a picture in purest white my lad. Such a thing doesnt exist in nature, and the effort just brings to attention the blots and stains.


In 2000, they were offered almost all they asked for ..

No, they weren't.


The Palestinians are a bunch of dangerous children ..

Better off when whitey was in charge eh?



Well he was theone the rejected it..

So yasser was what age when he died? 150? Your comment is American foriegn policy in a nutshell - conceived in ignorance and spewed out in stupidity upon an unsuspecting world.


And yet they were living somewhat peacefully until the Arabs decided to start the war in the Late 1940s ..

Apart from the killings, reprisals, riots,the Zionist "terrorist" campaign against the British and Arabs, the Arab revolt, and so on, I'm sure it was all tea and tiffin....You really are a piece of work.


Actually, they only bulldoze the homes of those who have committed terrorist acts or if smuggler tunnels were found under their homes. ..

But as there was over 14,000 Arab homes destroyed in Gaza alone before the Israeli withdrawal, thats not going to be the case now, is it?

One is that the Jews had bought it off the absente landlords and pesants who owned the land at that time...

But as I've already pointed out, the survey the proposed partition was based on says that this is not the case. But you ignored that, because you have no answer.

Better off when whitey was in charge eh?






Why try to make it a racial thing. Im just asking you to look as far astodays headlines.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060518/wl_nm/mideast_dc_11 entitled Hamas Abbas forces parade. At this moment 6 thousand Palastinains are marching back and forth in front of each other with thier figurative tounges out at each other waiting for someone to shoot first because someone doesnt believe in the flavor of the belief that the other group believes in. And this is all over a TINY FRACTION of the land they demand. Can you IMAGINE what these children with guns would do if they REALLY had more land to fight over? Has nothing to do with whitey my friend, but over this unbelievably embarassing behavior of the Palestinians twards eaxch other and being completly unable to maintain thier own house. I mean they even beg the world for allowance much like any of todays teenagers.
IMO the Palestinains are locked into a large scale Juvenile Hall much like dangerous teenagers are in first world countries, and there they should stay till they grow up and mature and learn to play well with others.

IMO the Palestinains are locked into a large scale Juvenile Hall much like dangerous teenagers are in first world countries, and there they should stay till they grow up and mature and learn to play well with others.

Like the Americans and Russians, I suppose. Or the British and French.

Untrue as has been pointed out to you before. Part of the refugees that Israel proposed accepting were to come with the territory of Gaza. Thats hardly "taking back".

I don't see what thats got to do with what I said. The refugees who had left were invited to return under three conditions that I have stated. That is true no matter how you look at it.


But as I've already pointed out, the survey the proposed partition was based on says that this is not the case. But you ignored that, because you have no answer.

It is true, and here is the proof. In his analysis of land purchases in Palestine between the 1880's and 1930's Abraham Granott shows that the plots were indeed bought from the absentee landlords in other countries. See page 278 of 'The Land system in Palestine: History and today'

And just for you again, here is the source from which a more extensive argument comes

MYTH

"Jews stole Arab land."

FACT
Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.18

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."19

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.20

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."21

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al*Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.23

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.25

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:


It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original).26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."28

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el*Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.30

And you can find the refencing numbers on the bottom of the page itself and see what they are referncing

I don't see what thats got to do with what I said. The refugees who had left were invited to return under three conditions that I have stated. That is true no matter how you look at it.

The offer was limited to 100,000 Arabs, the others being conditional on coming with Gaza attached. Thats not inviting the Arab population back.


It is true, and here is the proof. In his analysis of land purchases in Palestine between the 1880's and 1930's Abraham Granott shows that the plots were indeed bought from the absentee landlords in other countries. See page 278 of 'The Land system in Palestine: History and today'

I'm sure that some were. What I disagree with, and know- for a fact - to be untrue, is the idea that any substantive percentage of the land was under Jewish/Zionist ownership. 6% was. The rest was under Arab ownership.


And you can find the refencing numbers on the bottom of the page itself and see what they are referncing

What they're referring to is a commission founded "To ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April; to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to the obligations of the Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances on account of the way in which the Mandate has been or is being implemented; and if the Commission is satisfied that any such grievances are well-founded, to make recommendation; for their removal and for the prevention of their recurrence. "

While it did address the land ownership question, the report I constantly refer too, and indeed that the actual partition this thread is about is based on, is "A Survey of Palestine : Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Volume 1 of 3)" which dealt with the ownership of land and its usagehttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/102-7534290-0000969?n=283155

"By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres." according to your source above.

And the land area of Palestine was what, in Acres? 6, 674,560. Which gives us a total of Jewish land ownershp of 6.93%.

Perhaps if you looked at the detail you would have noticed that yourself. One who follows a cause blindly frequently trips, however.

The offer was limited to 100,000 Arabs, the others being conditional on coming with Gaza attached. Thats not inviting the Arab population back.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The offer I am talking about was open to all the Arabs who left and was taken up by 150,000 refugees. There were no strings attached


I'm sure that some were. What I disagree with, and know- for a fact - to be untrue, is the idea that any substantive percentage of the land was under Jewish/Zionist ownership. 6% was. The rest was under Arab ownership.

What they're referring to is a commission founded "To ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April; to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to the obligations of the Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances on account of the way in which the Mandate has been or is being implemented; and if the Commission is satisfied that any such grievances are well-founded, to make recommendation; for their removal and for the prevention of their recurrence. "

While it did address the land ownership question, the report I constantly refer too, and indeed that the actual partition this thread is about is based on, is "A Survey of Palestine : Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Volume 1 of 3)" which dealt with the ownership of land and its usagehttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/102-7534290-0000969?n=283155

"By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres." according to your source above.

And the land area of Palestine was what, in Acres? 6, 674,560. Which gives us a total of Jewish land ownershp of 6.93%.

Perhaps if you looked at the detail you would have noticed that yourself. One who follows a cause blindly frequently trips, however.

You are refencing the URL of the Amazon selling point of the report. It tells me nothing about what the report contained. And also, after WW1 the land was not Arab land anymore. It was British land, under their control due to the fact that they had defeated the Ottoman empire in 1924. Also the land if it was owned by Arabs certianly wasnt populated by them in any significent sense.

"[population of Palestine is] decreasing" Samuel Barrat From Egypt to Palestine New York, Harper, 1897

"Thinly populated" Edward Wilson In Scripture Lands New York, C.Scribners, 1890

In the time of the first Alliayh

And in the UNs report in 1947 said clearly that there was a majority of Jews to Arabs in the areas where the Israel partition was to be made.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The offer I am talking about was open to all the Arabs who left and was taken up by 150,000 refugees. There were no strings attached.

O we're talking about the same thing, but like much else, you are sold on the "spin".


You are refencing the URL of the Amazon selling point of the report. It tells me nothing about what the report contained. .

Because I want you to look it up. For yourself.


And also, after WW1 the land was not Arab land anymore. It was British land, under their control due to the fact that they had defeated the Ottoman empire in 1924..

Again, propoganda and spin. The League of Nations mandates were divided into A, B and C classes. Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Iraq were class A who were considered to "...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

That doesnt fit with "british land" now, does it? Again..look it up.


Also the land if it was owned by Arabs certianly wasnt populated by them in any significent sense. ..

Significant enough that 700,000 of them were eventually expelled.



And in the UNs report in 1947 said clearly that there was a majority of Jews to Arabs in the areas where the Israel partition was to be made.

But given the level of Land ownership and population those meant a greater "sacrifice" on the part of the Arabs, who were not prepared to do so.