No Palestinian State

[P F Tinmore]

The land registries show exactly what the Survey determined. The Jews owned less than 5% of the land. The Christians and Muslims owned more than 85%. 24 million dunams owned by the Christians and Muslims 1.5 dunmans by the Jews. The land registries were what the surveyors used to determine who owned the land. Your lies can't change the facts contained within the Ottoman and British records. These are the confirmed and published facts. You just blather nonsense, making things up with nothing to back up your blathering.

View attachment 38263

You don't know what you are talking about, do you even know what a land registry is. It is not your piece of fiction you keep posting for starters. It is a record of who acquired the land and in what manner going back as far as records are kept. The records for palestine were originally created by the Ottoman empire and show very little land ownership until the late 1800's other than Ottoman landholders living away from Palestine. Then in the early 1900's they show the Jews buying land in Palestine from Ottoman landholders for more than the land was worth. It also showed that a few arab muslims ( Syrians ) bought some land close to major towns and cities. Then at the end of WW1 Britain took over the job of keeping the land registry for Palestine and it was updated every time a purchase of land was made. It was not a record of how many sheep a farmer had or what crops were grown it was a record of land title only. So the British had the task of asking the land workers for proof of title to the land. See this link for an idea of a land register

Land Registry sold prices for sp11 7ew

And here is a land registry entry

http://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/QDMPS-Portlet/resources/example_title_plan.pdf

Not what you are passing of as a land registry, which is nothing more than a work of fiction. Note both links above are from an official government site not the work of a committee working towards informing another committee what they should tell a third committee.

After 1949 the Israeli's had the task of updating the land registry for Palestine, and still do to this day because the P.A. does not have the required intelligence to keep one up to date.

Now go away and cry to your imam that you have been shown to be a complete idiot by a kuffar when you kept posting the tripe that you claim as a source document

PA has copies of the Ottoman land registries. Large areas of land were sold to jews and tenet farmers had to leave in many cases. Most of the land was state land, not owned by palestinians.
With those record, why have there not been more court case to allow the palestinian owner to get back the land or compensated for it?
People that lived on the land, worked the land or sold the land have no legal claim to return the land to them.
It has been years since they received the registry.
If they do own any land, they also owe the unpaid taxes. Land abandoned for more than ten years could be bought or become state land. Israel courts have been favorable to most cases claims, but not all were valid. Arafat printed up fake documents and handed out old keys to make it seem that every refugee owned land. They did not.
Refugees pushed some of those living in gaza and the WB to move and those moved to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. They did not all move from what is now Israel.
Israel has already allowed around 100,000 to return through various programs until Oslo.
Even if Israel was inclined, there is no way Israel could absorb more than a million refugees all at once or even in stages.
They claim to be palestinian and the PA should be responsible for their care, relocating, finding a job, provide housing, social services, job training and anything else.
Till hamas and the other group disarm and stop calling for the destruction of Israel there can be no state. Hamas is unwilling and calls on people to attack Israel. How can they be allowed a state and live in peace with Israel when all they want to Israel blood to flood the streets?

93% of Israel is state land as we speak. What does that mean?

The same thing as American state land, British state land and any other nations state land. It is land owned by the state on behalf of the people. As in the many war cenetries, national parks, national institutions, roads, road verges etc. Who owns the Washinton Memorial and looks after it, who owns the Military bases ?

You need to tell Rocco. He seems to be confused on this issue.

 

[Humanity]

I don't doubt that Jews owned land and property in Gaza...

But as I am sure you know, Oslo doesn't just mention Gaza does it.

There can never be a two state solution until occupied territory is unoccupied.

There will never be a two state solution whilst Israel remains right wing.

It is important to remember that it is not only the Arab Muslims who are the 'bad guys' here!

There will never be peace in the region until BOTH parties accept that they BOTH need to make some compromises!

Got news for you. The "occupied territory" is that of the Palestinian squatters on on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole that they have now been living on for genereations.

Thats not news is it...

Thats just a Zionists viewpoint of what they perceive theirs... Which of course is completely wrong!

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you reply with the islamonazi viewpoint, which of course is based on LIES and PALLYWOOD PROPAGANDA

No Phoney....

INTERNATIONAL LAW!

Care to link to these alleged international laws then in full and prove that Israel is in breach of them. Or will you duck and dive as you always do ?

Sure buddy...

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because a country does not agree with the law does not mean that the law is null and void...

 

[Humanity]

BULLSHIT?

Ok Phoney... Like to tell me what Netanyahu has been quoted as saying about No Palestine?

What did the left of center parties have to say about No Palestine?

There are no "worst ones"...

Israel does not want peace... Because it will mean that they have to hand back occupied territory!

No Palestinian state under the present conditions

Israel is prepared to negotiate a peace deal that includes Jews living on Jewish owned land in the west bank

Define Jewish owned land in the West Bank...

If you mean settlers in occupied territory then... It's 'occupied' NOT 'owned'!

Simple land owned by the Jews prior to the mass eviction in 1949 that the Jews had valid land title to. This has been corroborated by the Land Registry in the UK that holds the details from the Mandate period. They show very little actual arab muslim land ownership in Palestine due to them not registering the land because they would need to pay taxes and be subject to conscription.

The land may be occupied in as much as it is under P.A. control, but it is owned by the Jews building the settlements and under International law the P.A. has to provide for their safety. If they refuse then Israel can provide the safety required by the land owners.

And the 'settlers'/'occupiers' should not be there Phoney should they! End of story!

Says who as the UN has admitted that the occupation is in line with International law

Care to share a link on that one Phoney?

 

[Phoenall]

Got news for you. The "occupied territory" is that of the Palestinian squatters on on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole that they have now been living on for genereations.

Thats not news is it...

Thats just a Zionists viewpoint of what they perceive theirs... Which of course is completely wrong!

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And you reply with the islamonazi viewpoint, which of course is based on LIES and PALLYWOOD PROPAGANDA

No Phoney....

INTERNATIONAL LAW!

Care to link to these alleged international laws then in full and prove that Israel is in breach of them. Or will you duck and dive as you always do ?

Sure buddy...

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because a country does not agree with the law does not mean that the law is null and void...

Since when has the UN made International laws ?

 

[Phoenall]

No Palestinian state under the present conditions

Israel is prepared to negotiate a peace deal that includes Jews living on Jewish owned land in the west bank

Define Jewish owned land in the West Bank...

If you mean settlers in occupied territory then... It's 'occupied' NOT 'owned'!

Simple land owned by the Jews prior to the mass eviction in 1949 that the Jews had valid land title to. This has been corroborated by the Land Registry in the UK that holds the details from the Mandate period. They show very little actual arab muslim land ownership in Palestine due to them not registering the land because they would need to pay taxes and be subject to conscription.

The land may be occupied in as much as it is under P.A. control, but it is owned by the Jews building the settlements and under International law the P.A. has to provide for their safety. If they refuse then Israel can provide the safety required by the land owners.

And the 'settlers'/'occupiers' should not be there Phoney should they! End of story!

Says who as the UN has admitted that the occupation is in line with International law

Care to share a link on that one Phoney?

The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law,

Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Humanity]

Define Jewish owned land in the West Bank...

If you mean settlers in occupied territory then... It's 'occupied' NOT 'owned'!

Simple land owned by the Jews prior to the mass eviction in 1949 that the Jews had valid land title to. This has been corroborated by the Land Registry in the UK that holds the details from the Mandate period. They show very little actual arab muslim land ownership in Palestine due to them not registering the land because they would need to pay taxes and be subject to conscription.

The land may be occupied in as much as it is under P.A. control, but it is owned by the Jews building the settlements and under International law the P.A. has to provide for their safety. If they refuse then Israel can provide the safety required by the land owners.

And the 'settlers'/'occupiers' should not be there Phoney should they! End of story!

Says who as the UN has admitted that the occupation is in line with International law

Care to share a link on that one Phoney?

The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law,

Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, let me get this straight...

The UN and international law clearly states that the West Bank and Golan Heights are "occupied territory" under international law right?

So, where's the argument?

The "occupied territory" should be given back.... Simple!

 

[montelatici]

I think that Phoney is trying to say that occupation is ok, because the UN describes the occupied territories as occupied in "accordance with" (as opposed to under as stated) international law. The guy is great for laughs.

 

[Phoenall]

Simple land owned by the Jews prior to the mass eviction in 1949 that the Jews had valid land title to. This has been corroborated by the Land Registry in the UK that holds the details from the Mandate period. They show very little actual arab muslim land ownership in Palestine due to them not registering the land because they would need to pay taxes and be subject to conscription.

The land may be occupied in as much as it is under P.A. control, but it is owned by the Jews building the settlements and under International law the P.A. has to provide for their safety. If they refuse then Israel can provide the safety required by the land owners.

And the 'settlers'/'occupiers' should not be there Phoney should they! End of story!

Says who as the UN has admitted that the occupation is in line with International law

Care to share a link on that one Phoney?

The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law,

Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, let me get this straight...

The UN and international law clearly states that the West Bank and Golan Heights are "occupied territory" under international law right?

So, where's the argument?

The "occupied territory" should be given back.... Simple!

Not quite as the same international law also states that the arab muslims need to negotiate a peace and mutual borders, then agree to not engaging in violence before the occupation and blockade will be lifted. The arab muslims know this as they agreed to these terms last year, and have still not put them in motion.

 

[Phoenall]

I think that Phoney is trying to say that occupation is ok, because the UN describes the occupied territories as occupied in "accordance with" (as opposed to under as stated) international law. The guy is great for laughs.

It is the same thing IDIOT, and the arab muslims agreed to this last year, just as they agreed to stop all murders of children, rockets, mortars, propaganda and false claims. So why are they refusing to abide by the terms and conditions they signed for.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And the 'settlers'/'occupiers' should not be there Phoney should they! End of story!

Says who as the UN has admitted that the occupation is in line with International law

Care to share a link on that one Phoney?

The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law,

Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, let me get this straight...

The UN and international law clearly states that the West Bank and Golan Heights are "occupied territory" under international law right?

So, where's the argument?

The "occupied territory" should be given back.... Simple!

Not quite as the same international law also states that the arab muslims need to negotiate a peace and mutual borders, then agree to not engaging in violence before the occupation and blockade will be lifted. The arab muslims know this as they agreed to these terms last year, and have still not put them in motion.

Not quite as the same international law also states that the arab muslims need to negotiate a peace and mutual borders,​

Do you have a link for that?

 

[montelatici]

I think that Phoney is trying to say that occupation is ok, because the UN describes the occupied territories as occupied in "accordance with" (as opposed to under as stated) international law. The guy is great for laughs.

It is the same thing IDIOT, and the arab muslims agreed to this last year, just as they agreed to stop all murders of children, rockets, mortars, propaganda and false claims. So why are they refusing to abide by the terms and conditions they signed for.

The Israelis have never abided by the terms they agreed to, in fact, they have finally declared officially through NutandYahoo that there will not be a Palestinian state, so there is no basis for negotiations.

It is the Israelis that are murdering thousands of non-Jewish women and children, not the Christians or Muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

Says who as the UN has admitted that the occupation is in line with International law

Care to share a link on that one Phoney?

The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law,

Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, let me get this straight...

The UN and international law clearly states that the West Bank and Golan Heights are "occupied territory" under international law right?

So, where's the argument?

The "occupied territory" should be given back.... Simple!

Not quite as the same international law also states that the arab muslims need to negotiate a peace and mutual borders, then agree to not engaging in violence before the occupation and blockade will be lifted. The arab muslims know this as they agreed to these terms last year, and have still not put them in motion.

Not quite as the same international law also states that the arab muslims need to negotiate a peace and mutual borders,​

Do you have a link for that?

Yes thanks!

 

[Phoenall]

I think that Phoney is trying to say that occupation is ok, because the UN describes the occupied territories as occupied in "accordance with" (as opposed to under as stated) international law. The guy is great for laughs.

It is the same thing IDIOT, and the arab muslims agreed to this last year, just as they agreed to stop all murders of children, rockets, mortars, propaganda and false claims. So why are they refusing to abide by the terms and conditions they signed for.

The Israelis have never abided by the terms they agreed to, in fact, they have finally declared officially through NutandYahoo that there will not be a Palestinian state, so there is no basis for negotiations.

It is the Israelis that are murdering thousands of non-Jewish women and children, not the Christians or Muslims.

ISLAMONAZI BULLSHIT

What does the Palestinians charter say about Israel then Abdul, care to post it so we an see who is actually saying NO TWO STATE SOLUTION ?

 

[Mindful]

Charles Krauthammer: The two-state delusion.

O f all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister, either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

Charles Krauthammer The two-state delusion - NY Daily News

 

[theliq]

Charles Krauthammer: The two-state delusion.

O f all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister, either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

Charles Krauthammer The two-state delusion - NY Daily News

There is always some EXCUSE where the ISRAELIS are concerned .........But I agree Nit-and Yarhoo.....says things to suit the moment,not an individual that could ever be trusted.........Well Palestine has never had a Dictator,......Far from it,when America and Israel demanded(YES DEMANDED) the Palestinians had Free and Fair Democratic Elections and Gaza voted for Hamas.........Fair enough.......but this is nothing to compare with what the "Dills" Israel and America did years before ...They armed,promoted and supported Hamas ?????? I know you wonder what they were thinking....like normal... NOT MUCH.........you/they can't weep now because they got what they wanted.......Fair and Simple........I have never had any great expectations of Israelis or Americans because they are not progressive nations these days.....in fact the can be very Simple.

H.I.M.TheLiq..ever living,ever faithful,ever sure.

 

[theliq]

How many came from Egypt?

How many came from Jordan?

Quite a lot actually, even their leader was not from Palestine.

Nice duck.

How is posting factual truth ducking ?

You didn't answer the questions.

You asked how many arab muslims came from Egypt and Jordan.

I answered "quite a lot"

So how is that ducking or not answering your question ?

Rubbish

 

[Mindful]

Charles Krauthammer: The two-state delusion.

O f all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister, either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

Charles Krauthammer The two-state delusion - NY Daily News

There is always some EXCUSE where the ISRAELIS are concerned .........But I agree Nit-and Yarhoo.....says things to suit the moment,not an individual that could ever be trusted.........Well Palestine has never had a Dictator,......Far from it,when America and Israel demanded(YES DEMANDED) the Palestinians had Free and Fair Democratic Elections and Gaza voted for Hamas.........Fair enough.......but this is nothing to compare with what the "Dills" Israel and America did years before ...They armed,promoted and supported Hamas ?????? I know you wonder what they were thinking....like normal... NOT MUCH.........you/they can't weep now because they got what they wanted.......Fair and Simple........I have never had any great expectations of Israelis or Americans because they are not progressive nations these days.....in fact the can be very Simple.

H.I.M.TheLiq..ever living,ever faithful,ever sure.

Couldn't comprehend one word.

 

[Phoenall]

Quite a lot actually, even their leader was not from Palestine.

Nice duck.

How is posting factual truth ducking ?

You didn't answer the questions.

You asked how many arab muslims came from Egypt and Jordan.

I answered "quite a lot"

So how is that ducking or not answering your question ?

Rubbish

So you are saying that the word of another muslim is rubbish are you, because that is where the fact comes from

 

[member]

So what is Netanyahu's solution?

Without any flexibility for negotiation of a two state solution then there can never be peace in the region...

To suggest that a two state solution will "giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel" is ridiculous... So, there would be no change then!

Offer a two state solution, withdraw from occupied territories and I for one will stand with Israel against any Islamic radical attacks and support Israel and international intervention!

Netanyahu's comments simply prove that the Israeli right wing has no stomach for a peaceful solution.

Been tried and the arab muslims made sure it failed, so what has changed in the last 10 years to show it wont fail again. They have been offered a two state solution and turned it down every time. So now Israel is saying what the arab muslims have been saying for the last 66 years and the islamonazi stooges don't like it.

When was a real two state solution tried?

usually at recess time.

 

[montelatici]

So what is Netanyahu's solution?

Without any flexibility for negotiation of a two state solution then there can never be peace in the region...

To suggest that a two state solution will "giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel" is ridiculous... So, there would be no change then!

Offer a two state solution, withdraw from occupied territories and I for one will stand with Israel against any Islamic radical attacks and support Israel and international intervention!

Netanyahu's comments simply prove that the Israeli right wing has no stomach for a peaceful solution.

Been tried and the arab muslims made sure it failed, so what has changed in the last 10 years to show it wont fail again. They have been offered a two state solution and turned it down every time. So now Israel is saying what the arab muslims have been saying for the last 66 years and the islamonazi stooges don't like it.

When was a real two state solution tried?

usually at recess time.

Usually all the time: