Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 1,218
- 8,528
- 2,138
The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition. The United States sought a middle way by supporting the United Nations resolution, but also encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East
As you have been told before, but do not seem to understand, some Arab leaders could not fathom Jews being sovereign over Muslims.
Those leaders crushed the Arab clans which were for the re creation of Israel and most of the Arab population against the Jews and Israel's creation.
They could not accept Partition 1 in 1936 and again rejected Partition 2 in 1947. The Jewish leaders accepted both partitions both times.
Once Israel declared Independence many Arab states invaded Israel the next day in order to destroy it.
Jews are never to be sovereign over Muslims.
Resolution 181 and the Early Phases of the 1948 War
Despite their best efforts, by the end of the Mandate, the Jewish settlers had managed to acquire only about 7 percent of the land in Palestine. Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district, including Jaffa, which included the largest Jewish population center, Tel Aviv. According to the UNSCOP report, “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land.” A subcommittee report further observed that “The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Jewish population in the area of their proposed state was 498,000, while the number of Arabs was 407,000 plus an estimated 105,000 Bedouins. “In other words,” the subcommittee report noted, “at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”
UNSCOP nevertheless proposed that the Arab state be constituted from about 44 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded about 55 percent for their state, including the best agricultural lands. The committee was not incognizant of how this plan prejudiced the rights of the majority Arab population. In fact, in keeping with the prejudice inherent in the Mandate, the UNSCOP report explicitly rejected the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination. The “principle of self-determination” was “not applied to Palestine,” the report stated, “obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle
Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.www.foreignpolicyjournal.com
Take this post to the other thread:
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
UAE Writer: The Arab Expulsion Of Jews Was A Disastrous Mistake Emirati writer Salam Hamid, founder and head of the Al-Mezmaah Studies and Research Center in Dubai, published an article titled "The Cost of the Expulsion of the Arab Jews" in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, in which he lamented the...www.usmessageboard.com
By the way:
The Mandate for Palestine was The Mandate for Israel.
They declared war on the Jews from 1920.
Refused two Partitions.
The Arabs wanted it all to be in Muslim hands, just as 78% of the Mandate already was in the Hashemite Muslim hands since 1922.
It's OK to ethnically cleanse people who have a lot of land
The Arabs owned hardly any lands. The Ottoman Empire did. And many who did own lands sold them to the Jews.
It is ok to expel a people who are armed and want to kill you. As the Arabs were, and as they wanted to kill Jews.
Another aspect of the Zionists’ land purchases was how it disenfranchised Arab inhabitants who had theretofore been living on and working the land. This was achieved by exploiting feudalistic Ottoman land laws. Under the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, the state effectively claimed ownership of the land and individuals were regarded as tenants. Subsequently, the law was amended so individuals could register for a title-deed to the land, but landholders often saw no need to do so unless they were interested in selling. Moreover, there were incentives not to register, including the desire to avoid granting legitimacy to the Ottoman government, to avoid paying registration fees and taxes, and to evade possible military conscription. Additionally, land lived on and cultivated by one individual or family was often registered in the name of another, such as local government magnates who registered large plots or even entire villages in their own names.[50] The British Shaw Commission report of 1929 described another common means by which the rightful owners of the land were legally disenfranchised:
Under the Turkish regime, especially in the latter half of the eighteenth century, persons of the peasant classes in some parts of the Ottoman Empire, including the territory now known as Palestine, found that by admitting the over-lordship of the Sultan or of some member of the Turkish aristocracy, they could obtain protection against extortion and other material benefits which counterbalanced the tribune demanded by their over-lord as a return for his protection. Accordingly many peasant cultivators at that time either willingly entered into an arrangement of this character or, finding that it was imposed upon them, submitted to it. By these means persons of importance and position in the Ottoman Empire acquired the legal title to large tracts of land which for generations and in some cases for centuries had been in the undisturbed and undisputed occupation of peasants who . . . had undoubtedly a strong moral claim to be allowed to continue in occupation of those lands.[51]
Much of the land acquired by the JNF was purchased from absentee landlords, with extreme prejudice toward the poor Arab inhabitants who by rights were its legitimate owners.[52] According to the Shaw Commission, no more than 10 percent of purchased land was acquired from peasants, the rest having been “acquired from the owners of large estates most of whom live outside Palestine”.[53] In the Vale of Esdraelon, for instance, “one of the most fertile parts of Palestine”, Jews purchased 200,000 dunams (more than 49,000 acres) from a wealthy family of Christian Arabs from Beirut (the Sursock family). Included in the purchase were 22 villages, “the tenants of which, with the exception of a single village, were displaced: 1,746 families or 8,730 people.”[54] As another example, in the Wadi el Hawareth area, the JNF purchased 30,826 dunams (more than 7,600 acres) and evicted a large proportion its 1,200 Arab inhabitants.[55]
Living on and working the land does not make them owners.
THE owners chose to sell their lands....to the Jews
The Ottomans stole the land sold it to the zionists. Then the new thieves kicked the real owners out into the desert
