Just something I noticed during my time on this board.

[P F Tinmore]

The British Mandate
Land ownership under the British Mandate was based on the Ottoman Land Code, with additional legislation adopted during the Mandate. Under the Ottoman Code, land was classified in five categories with provisions for documentation of registration. The two basic types of land were mulk (private lands), and miri (land
leased from the state). While the latter was subject to certain limitations, miri land was inherited, sold, and generally regarded as the land of the user. Under the code, individuals able to prove cultivation of a plot of land for 10 years or more were issued a title of ownership.





As you can see from the above information individual ownership of the land was allowed under the British Mandate. Otherwise how could the Jewish people have purchased land in the Mandate. So you see that your analogy breaks down because in your analogy each of the individuals has certain rights to the same property. That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

It is interesting however that in your analogy you assign the role of eldest by implication to the Palestinians !

Of course individual ownership was allowed under the British Mandate, two points however ,first , who told you that the Palestinian Arabs where the individual owners of all the lands that was not owned by the Jews ?
Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

You don't seem to differentiate between legal transaction and a war.
Palestinians didn't care much for property rights when they tried to kick the Jews out.

Re-post FYI,

When the Ottoman Empire took over Palestine one of the things they did was to grab all the land from the owners. These former owners then had "land rights." These rights could be bought, sold, or inherited. Of course they had to pay lease to the empire to keep these rights. It was similar to a property tax. Keep paying or lose your land.

At the fall of the empire these lands were ceded to the government of Palestine and ownership was being restored to those who owned the rights.

 

[JStone]

The British Mandate
Land ownership under the British Mandate was based on the Ottoman Land Code, with additional legislation adopted during the Mandate. Under the Ottoman Code, land was classified in five categories with provisions for documentation of registration. The two basic types of land were mulk (private lands), and miri (land
leased from the state). While the latter was subject to certain limitations, miri land was inherited, sold, and generally regarded as the land of the user. Under the code, individuals able to prove cultivation of a plot of land for 10 years or more were issued a title of ownership.

As you can see from the above information individual ownership of the land was allowed under the British Mandate. Otherwise how could the Jewish people have purchased land in the Mandate. So you see that your analogy breaks down because in your analogy each of the individuals has certain rights to the same property. That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

It is interesting however that in your analogy you assign the role of eldest by implication to the Palestinians !

Of course individual ownership was allowed under the British Mandate, two points however ,first , who told you that the Palestinian Arabs where the individual owners of all the lands that was not owned by the Jews ?
Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

You don't seem to differentiate between legal transaction and a war.
Palestinians didn't care much for property rights when they tried to kick the Jews out.

Re-post FYI,

When the Ottoman Empire took over Palestine one of the things they did was to grab all the land from the owners. These former owners then had "land rights." These rights could be bought, sold, or inherited. Of course they had to pay lease to the empire to keep these rights. It was similar to a property tax. Keep paying or lose your land.

At the fall of the empire these lands were ceded to the government of Palestine and ownership was being restored to those who owned the rights.

Wrong, as usual, dunce. Read, learn: http://www.usmessageboard.com/5024162-post301.html

PFucktard



"Rep System Guidelines: Our reputation system is designed to provide a feedback and credibility mechanism."

P F Tinmore Rep Power: 0
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,512
"PF Tinmore is off the scale"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Vp642ERhM&feature=related]Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

The British Mandate
Land ownership under the British Mandate was based on the Ottoman Land Code, with additional legislation adopted during the Mandate. Under the Ottoman Code, land was classified in five categories with provisions for documentation of registration. The two basic types of land were mulk (private lands), and miri (land
leased from the state). While the latter was subject to certain limitations, miri land was inherited, sold, and generally regarded as the land of the user. Under the code, individuals able to prove cultivation of a plot of land for 10 years or more were issued a title of ownership.





As you can see from the above information individual ownership of the land was allowed under the British Mandate. Otherwise how could the Jewish people have purchased land in the Mandate. So you see that your analogy breaks down because in your analogy each of the individuals has certain rights to the same property. That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

It is interesting however that in your analogy you assign the role of eldest by implication to the Palestinians !

Of course individual ownership was allowed under the British Mandate, two points however ,first , who told you that the Palestinian Arabs where the individual owners of all the lands that was not owned by the Jews ?
Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

You don't seem to differentiate between legal transaction and a war.
Palestinians didn't care much for property rights when they tried to kick the Jews out.

Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

Why should anything change? The mandate owned no land. The mandate was not Palestine. It was there to assist Palestine. They were two separate entities. After the mandate left Palestine was still there.

 

[JStone]

The British Mandate
Land ownership under the British Mandate was based on the Ottoman Land Code, with additional legislation adopted during the Mandate. Under the Ottoman Code, land was classified in five categories with provisions for documentation of registration. The two basic types of land were mulk (private lands), and miri (land
leased from the state). While the latter was subject to certain limitations, miri land was inherited, sold, and generally regarded as the land of the user. Under the code, individuals able to prove cultivation of a plot of land for 10 years or more were issued a title of ownership.





As you can see from the above information individual ownership of the land was allowed under the British Mandate. Otherwise how could the Jewish people have purchased land in the Mandate. So you see that your analogy breaks down because in your analogy each of the individuals has certain rights to the same property. That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

It is interesting however that in your analogy you assign the role of eldest by implication to the Palestinians !

Of course individual ownership was allowed under the British Mandate, two points however ,first , who told you that the Palestinian Arabs where the individual owners of all the lands that was not owned by the Jews ?
Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?


You don't seem to differentiate between legal transaction and a war.
Palestinians didn't care much for property rights when they tried to kick the Jews out.

Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

Why should anything change? The mandate owned no land. The mandate was not Palestine. It was there to assist Palestine. They were two separate entities. After the mandate left Palestine was still there.

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Rostow...

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory [Palestine]. The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own."

Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies

 

[Wolverine1984]

The British Mandate
Land ownership under the British Mandate was based on the Ottoman Land Code, with additional legislation adopted during the Mandate. Under the Ottoman Code, land was classified in five categories with provisions for documentation of registration. The two basic types of land were mulk (private lands), and miri (land
leased from the state). While the latter was subject to certain limitations, miri land was inherited, sold, and generally regarded as the land of the user. Under the code, individuals able to prove cultivation of a plot of land for 10 years or more were issued a title of ownership.





As you can see from the above information individual ownership of the land was allowed under the British Mandate. Otherwise how could the Jewish people have purchased land in the Mandate. So you see that your analogy breaks down because in your analogy each of the individuals has certain rights to the same property. That as you can see is not the case Jewish Individuals owned land and Palestinian Individuals owned land and neither of them because of property rights had the legal authority to confiscate or take the others land.

It is interesting however that in your analogy you assign the role of eldest by implication to the Palestinians !

Of course individual ownership was allowed under the British Mandate, two points however ,first , who told you that the Palestinian Arabs where the individual owners of all the lands that was not owned by the Jews ?
Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?


You don't seem to differentiate between legal transaction and a war.
Palestinians didn't care much for property rights when they tried to kick the Jews out.

Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

Why should anything change? The mandate owned no land. The mandate was not Palestine. It was there to assist Palestine. They were two separate entities. After the mandate left Palestine was still there.

What you are saying is false.
The only political entity at the time that was called Palestine was the mandate. Otherwise Palestine was just a geographical area... like North or South America.
So of course the mandate was Palestine and without the mandate there is no Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course individual ownership was allowed under the British Mandate, two points however ,first , who told you that the Palestinian Arabs where the individual owners of all the lands that was not owned by the Jews ?
Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?


You don't seem to differentiate between legal transaction and a war.
Palestinians didn't care much for property rights when they tried to kick the Jews out.

Second , what happens to individual owned lands after the mandate leaves ?

Why should anything change? The mandate owned no land. The mandate was not Palestine. It was there to assist Palestine. They were two separate entities. After the mandate left Palestine was still there.

What you are saying is false.
The only political entity at the time that was called Palestine was the mandate. Otherwise Palestine was just a geographical area... like North or South America.
So of course the mandate was Palestine and without the mandate there is no Palestine.

Not so. Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 armistice agreements. It was still there. It is still called Palestine.

 

[JStone]

Why should anything change? The mandate owned no land. The mandate was not Palestine. It was there to assist Palestine. They were two separate entities. After the mandate left Palestine was still there.

What you are saying is false.
The only political entity at the time that was called Palestine was the mandate. Otherwise Palestine was just a geographical area... like North or South America.
So of course the mandate was Palestine and without the mandate there is no Palestine.

Not so. Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 armistice agreements. It was still there. It is still called Palestine.

Palestine was an invented Roman name for Israel under the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire dissolved 1500 years ago.

Biblical Historian and Scholar Dr. Paula Fredriksen, Professor of Religion, Boston University; Ph.D, History of Religion, Princeton University; Diploma in Theology, Oxford University

The Judean revolt against Rome was led by [Jewish rebel] Bar Kochba in 132-135 CE. The immediate causes of this rebellion are obscure. Its result was not: [Roman Emperor] Hadrian crushed the revolt and banned Jews from Judea.

The Romans now designated this territory by a political neologism, "Palestine" [a Latin form of "Philistine"], in a deliberate effort to denationalize Jewish/Judean territory. And, finally, Hadrian eradicated Jewish Jerusalem, erecting upon its ruins a new pagan city, Aelia Capitolina.
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews by Paula Fredriksen - Book - Random House

PBS...

In 70 AD, after a siege marked by starvation and terror crucifixions, the Roman army broke through the walls of Jerusalem. Not only did they kill thousands of Jews, they laid waste to the Temple, the only place on Earth, according to Biblical law, where Jews could worship God.

It was the death of the religion of Priests and sacrifices described by the Hebrew Bible. But, it would not be the death of Judaism. In the years ahead, some of the greatest religious minds in history would struggle to reinvent the religion of Moses and David.

But, the Jews would be forced to work during a period of almost inconceivable bloodshed and turmoil. They would watch their people be expelled from Jerusalem on pain of death and see the name of their homeland changed from Judea to Palestine

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLypbbijk2I&feature=relmfu]The Gifts of the Jews - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

What's in a name?

A cesspool by any other name would smell as sweet

 

[JStone]

What's in a name?

A cesspool by any other name would smell as sweet

Warren Buffett...

We believe generally in the United States, we believe in ourselves and what a young country can achieve. Israel, since 1948, now a major factor in commerce and in the world. It's a smaller replica of what has been accomplished here and I think Americans admire that. They feel good about societies that are on the move.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaN_2nFqFtI]Warren Buffet Supports the U.S.-Israel Relationship - YouTube[/ame]

Warren Buffett...

If you go to the Middle East looking for oil, you don't need to stop in Israel. But, if you're looking for brains, for energy, for integrity, for imagination, it's the only stop you need to make"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbX60Pktzsk]Warren Buffet on Israel - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wolverine1984]

Why should anything change? The mandate owned no land. The mandate was not Palestine. It was there to assist Palestine. They were two separate entities. After the mandate left Palestine was still there.

What you are saying is false.
The only political entity at the time that was called Palestine was the mandate. Otherwise Palestine was just a geographical area... like North or South America.
So of course the mandate was Palestine and without the mandate there is no Palestine.

Not so. Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 armistice agreements. It was still there. It is still called Palestine.

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What you are saying is false.
The only political entity at the time that was called Palestine was the mandate. Otherwise Palestine was just a geographical area... like North or South America.
So of course the mandate was Palestine and without the mandate there is no Palestine.

Not so. Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 armistice agreements. It was still there. It is still called Palestine.

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

They didn't call it anything else. They did not call it, or any part of it, Israel.

 

[JStone]

Not so. Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 armistice agreements. It was still there. It is still called Palestine.

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

They didn't call it anything else. They did not call it, or any part of it, Israel.

Palestine is Israel. The Romans renamed Israel palestine during the Roman Empire.

Biblical Historian and Scholar Dr. Paula Fredriksen, Professor of Religion, Boston University; Ph.D, History of Religion, Princeton University; Diploma in Theology, Oxford University

The Judean revolt against Rome was led by [Jewish rebel] Bar Kochba in 132-135 CE. The immediate causes of this rebellion are obscure. Its result was not: [Roman Emperor] Hadrian crushed the revolt and banned Jews from Judea.

The Romans now designated this territory by a political neologism, "Palestine" [a Latin form of "Philistine"], in a deliberate effort to denationalize Jewish/Judean territory. And, finally, Hadrian eradicated Jewish Jerusalem, erecting upon its ruins a new pagan city, Aelia Capitolina.
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews by Paula Fredriksen - Book - Random House

 

[Wolverine1984]

Not so. Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 armistice agreements. It was still there. It is still called Palestine.

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

They didn't call it anything else. They did not call it, or any part of it, Israel.

Again , it doesn't matter ... I would repeat myself:

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

They didn't call it anything else. They did not call it, or any part of it, Israel.

Again , it doesn't matter ... I would repeat myself:

Being mentioned in an armistice does not prove anything ...
Does the agreement says that Palestine is a sovereign or political entity ? No.
Palestine is only mentioned because the armistice lines were drawn on the mandatory Palestine borders. It does not prove "It was still there ..." because it was only there as part of the mandate.

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

With people who have the right to self determination without foreign influence.

 

[JStone]

They didn't call it anything else. They did not call it, or any part of it, Israel.

Again , it doesn't matter ... I would repeat myself:

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

With people who have the right to self determination without foreign influence.

Arabs have 25 countries for self-determination, twice the size of the US.

 

[Wolverine1984]

They didn't call it anything else. They did not call it, or any part of it, Israel.

Again , it doesn't matter ... I would repeat myself:

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

With people who have the right to self determination without foreign influence.

So now you agree that at the time Palestine was just a geographical area , contrary to what you have said before.

All people have the right to self determination ... (even thought international law does not really defined what self determination means )
and self determination has nothing to do with a state or a country.

By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#cite_note-3

Palestinians are free to choose their own acts , however those acts sometimes have consequences.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Again , it doesn't matter ... I would repeat myself:

At that point in time , Palestine was just a geographical Area.

With people who have the right to self determination without foreign influence.

So now you agree that at the time Palestine was just a geographical area , contrary to what you have said before.

All people have the right to self determination ... (even thought international law does not really defined what self determination means )
and self determination has nothing to do with a state or a country.

By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#cite_note-3

Palestinians are free to choose their own acts , however those acts sometimes have consequences.

...without external compulsion.

That is the key. Any external (foreign) compulsion is illegitimate.

 

[Wolverine1984]

With people who have the right to self determination without foreign influence.

So now you agree that at the time Palestine was just a geographical area , contrary to what you have said before.

All people have the right to self determination ... (even thought international law does not really defined what self determination means )
and self determination has nothing to do with a state or a country.



Palestinians are free to choose their own acts , however those acts sometimes have consequences.

...without external compulsion.

That is the key. Any external (foreign) compulsion is illegitimate.

Sure ,however no one external told them what to do.Their decisions and actions where their own (Maybe influenced by the Arab world , but it's even worse for your case ...).

 

[P F Tinmore]

So now you agree that at the time Palestine was just a geographical area , contrary to what you have said before.

All people have the right to self determination ... (even thought international law does not really defined what self determination means )
and self determination has nothing to do with a state or a country.



Palestinians are free to choose their own acts , however those acts sometimes have consequences.

...without external compulsion.

That is the key. Any external (foreign) compulsion is illegitimate.

Sure ,however no one external told them what to do.Their decisions and actions where their own (Maybe influenced by the Arab world , but it's even worse for your case ...).

Israel never would have been created without illegal foreign intervention.

 

[Wolverine1984]

That is the key. Any external (foreign) compulsion is illegitimate.

Sure ,however no one external told them what to do.Their decisions and actions where their own (Maybe influenced by the Arab world , but it's even worse for your case ...).

Israel never would have been created without illegal foreign intervention.

British mandate was fully legal, in fact during the rule of the Ottoman empire the Palestinians have much less rights and freedoms then during the British mandate. Also the Ottoman empire never considered making a Palestinian state.