“Our farm is 3.2 hectares and my grandfather farmed it from 1922......

[MJB12741]

View attachment 203922

“Our farm is 3.2 hectares and my grandfather farmed it from 1922 until 1954 when my father took it over and then when my father died in 1984, I began farming the land. We grow mainly vegetables which we sell locally in Palestine, ” said Mr Taneeb, speaking through an interpreter.

Visiting Palestinians believe Israel’s goal ‘is to uproot us from our land’

Anyone can say anything.

You need evidence. I've looked at how the land ownership in Israel works. People that can provide documentation of their purchase and ownership of the land, are given property rights under Israeli law. I have watched videos of courts giving documentation of land ownership, issuing legal rights to anyone, that includes Muslims, Christians, Jordanians, Palestinians, even Egyptians.

Anyone can say "My grandfather farmed it from 1922". Great. Did he own it? Maybe you don't know the history, but tons of Jews were slaughtered in the riots and uprisings across Israel all during the early 1920s. Specifically, Jewish farming settlements were attacked during 1922. So this idea that "Well my grandfather was farming it in 1922", doesn't mean much if he stole it from murdered Jews.

If he really was farming the land, that he owned, then he should have a certificate of ownership issued by the British. The Israelis will honors any certificate of ownership issued by the Brits. Present that legal document in Israeli court, and they will be issued property rights to the land.

Otherwise, no. And nor should they get the land.

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

 

[Shusha]

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Oddly enough, both yes and no. According to Ottoman land laws, which affect Israeli and Palestinian law today, cultivating miri land does convey a legal right to continued use of the land, including inheritance rights. It does not convey ownership in the sense of private, absolute control (mulk land) but only an absolute right to use of the land -- including farming it and placing structures. So, one of the ways Arab Palestinians attempt to exert control over land is actually to cultivate and farm it.

In modern discourse all land (mulk, miri, mewat, metruki, and musha) tends to be lumped into the category "private Palestinian land", and indeed, this is a deliberate tactic taken early on to give the illusion that there is more private land ownership (mulk) than there really is. And it causes conflict between the two sides.

We have here a family who has been farming the land since 1922. They have no ownership of the land, but they have a long standing "right to cultivate". A right that is embedded in the culture of the peoples of that land. And it comes into direct conflict with Western ideas of land ownership.

 

[Andylusion]

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Oddly enough, both yes and no. According to Ottoman land laws, which affect Israeli and Palestinian law today, cultivating miri land does convey a legal right to continued use of the land, including inheritance rights. It does not convey ownership in the sense of private, absolute control (mulk land) but only an absolute right to use of the land -- including farming it and placing structures. So, one of the ways Arab Palestinians attempt to exert control over land is actually to cultivate and farm it.

In modern discourse all land (mulk, miri, mewat, metruki, and musha) tends to be lumped into the category "private Palestinian land", and indeed, this is a deliberate tactic taken early on to give the illusion that there is more private land ownership (mulk) than there really is. And it causes conflict between the two sides.

We have here a family who has been farming the land since 1922. They have no ownership of the land, but they have a long standing "right to cultivate". A right that is embedded in the culture of the peoples of that land. And it comes into direct conflict with Western ideas of land ownership.

Ok, I can sort of buy that idea.... but that still doesn't explain why the land was not privatized. My understanding under British rule, these exact people were given certificates of ownership by the British. It is these certificates that if presented in Israeli court, will be honored and full legal rights will be granted to the Palestinian people who cultivated the land.

See, this is exactly what I have problem with in the original post. The lady specifically says he started cultivating in 1922.

I find that fascinating, because if they had been cultivating prior to 1922, such as under the Ottomans, they would have gotten a certificate for the land when the Brits gained control.

The fact they were not cultivating the land until 1922, the very year the massive slaughter of Jewish Farmers happened, suggests to me that the reason they didn't get a certificate is because they couldn't. Because they were not the owners of the land. The Brits would never give certificate of land to an Arab farming on the land of murdered Jewish farmers.

Of course this is speculation. Maybe their documents were lost, or burned, or something, and they never bothered to renew them. Maybe who knows. When she said specifically the year 1922, that to me is a red flag.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Oddly enough, both yes and no. According to Ottoman land laws, which affect Israeli and Palestinian law today, cultivating miri land does convey a legal right to continued use of the land, including inheritance rights. It does not convey ownership in the sense of private, absolute control (mulk land) but only an absolute right to use of the land -- including farming it and placing structures. So, one of the ways Arab Palestinians attempt to exert control over land is actually to cultivate and farm it.

In modern discourse all land (mulk, miri, mewat, metruki, and musha) tends to be lumped into the category "private Palestinian land", and indeed, this is a deliberate tactic taken early on to give the illusion that there is more private land ownership (mulk) than there really is. And it causes conflict between the two sides.

We have here a family who has been farming the land since 1922. They have no ownership of the land, but they have a long standing "right to cultivate". A right that is embedded in the culture of the peoples of that land. And it comes into direct conflict with Western ideas of land ownership.

Indeed, you cannot judge one system by the norms of another

BTW, the Turks ceded their state land to Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Oddly enough, both yes and no. According to Ottoman land laws, which affect Israeli and Palestinian law today, cultivating miri land does convey a legal right to continued use of the land, including inheritance rights. It does not convey ownership in the sense of private, absolute control (mulk land) but only an absolute right to use of the land -- including farming it and placing structures. So, one of the ways Arab Palestinians attempt to exert control over land is actually to cultivate and farm it.

In modern discourse all land (mulk, miri, mewat, metruki, and musha) tends to be lumped into the category "private Palestinian land", and indeed, this is a deliberate tactic taken early on to give the illusion that there is more private land ownership (mulk) than there really is. And it causes conflict between the two sides.

We have here a family who has been farming the land since 1922. They have no ownership of the land, but they have a long standing "right to cultivate". A right that is embedded in the culture of the peoples of that land. And it comes into direct conflict with Western ideas of land ownership.

Ok, I can sort of buy that idea.... but that still doesn't explain why the land was not privatized. My understanding under British rule, these exact people were given certificates of ownership by the British. It is these certificates that if presented in Israeli court, will be honored and full legal rights will be granted to the Palestinian people who cultivated the land.

See, this is exactly what I have problem with in the original post. The lady specifically says he started cultivating in 1922.

I find that fascinating, because if they had been cultivating prior to 1922, such as under the Ottomans, they would have gotten a certificate for the land when the Brits gained control.

The fact they were not cultivating the land until 1922, the very year the massive slaughter of Jewish Farmers happened, suggests to me that the reason they didn't get a certificate is because they couldn't. Because they were not the owners of the land. The Brits would never give certificate of land to an Arab farming on the land of murdered Jewish farmers.

Of course this is speculation. Maybe their documents were lost, or burned, or something, and they never bothered to renew them. Maybe who knows. When she said specifically the year 1922, that to me is a red flag.

Oh, its definitely a red flag. But see, the CULTURAL expectation of the time (and even now) is that if I cultivate this land and build a house on it -- it becomes "mine". Its not ownership the way we Westerners see ownership but it is an absolute right that as long as I am here on this land and using it my heirs and I have an absolute right to continue to use it in perpetuity. That is the cultural understanding of land use in that place.

The registration process of mulk and miri land between the end of the Ottoman period through the Mandate period is a mess. The British tended to view the situation that if someone could be found to pay taxes, then the land was "owned", but it was easy enough to just squat and avoid paying taxes. Then Israel came along and conveniently became the "bad guy".

On top of all THAT, very little land was actually surveyed, meaning where my land ends and yours begins is a matter of pride, negotiation, use, tradition, honor, etc. And when "yours" means Israel and Jews, it tends to become all mine.

 

[Shusha]

BTW, the Turks ceded their state land to Palestine.

Don't be tedious. You've been proven wrong on that so many times it goes beyond ridiculous.

The Turks surrendered the land without condition to the Allied Powers and assigned its distribution to them.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, you cannot judge one system by the norms of another

That would go both ways. It creates a conflict that is very difficult to solve though, as each side sees themselves being cheated by the other according to their own norms. How would you suggest it be solved? With respect to private ownership, rather than sovereignty.

 

[Andylusion]

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Oddly enough, both yes and no. According to Ottoman land laws, which affect Israeli and Palestinian law today, cultivating miri land does convey a legal right to continued use of the land, including inheritance rights. It does not convey ownership in the sense of private, absolute control (mulk land) but only an absolute right to use of the land -- including farming it and placing structures. So, one of the ways Arab Palestinians attempt to exert control over land is actually to cultivate and farm it.

In modern discourse all land (mulk, miri, mewat, metruki, and musha) tends to be lumped into the category "private Palestinian land", and indeed, this is a deliberate tactic taken early on to give the illusion that there is more private land ownership (mulk) than there really is. And it causes conflict between the two sides.

We have here a family who has been farming the land since 1922. They have no ownership of the land, but they have a long standing "right to cultivate". A right that is embedded in the culture of the peoples of that land. And it comes into direct conflict with Western ideas of land ownership.

Ok, I can sort of buy that idea.... but that still doesn't explain why the land was not privatized. My understanding under British rule, these exact people were given certificates of ownership by the British. It is these certificates that if presented in Israeli court, will be honored and full legal rights will be granted to the Palestinian people who cultivated the land.

See, this is exactly what I have problem with in the original post. The lady specifically says he started cultivating in 1922.

I find that fascinating, because if they had been cultivating prior to 1922, such as under the Ottomans, they would have gotten a certificate for the land when the Brits gained control.

The fact they were not cultivating the land until 1922, the very year the massive slaughter of Jewish Farmers happened, suggests to me that the reason they didn't get a certificate is because they couldn't. Because they were not the owners of the land. The Brits would never give certificate of land to an Arab farming on the land of murdered Jewish farmers.

Of course this is speculation. Maybe their documents were lost, or burned, or something, and they never bothered to renew them. Maybe who knows. When she said specifically the year 1922, that to me is a red flag.

Oh, its definitely a red flag. But see, the CULTURAL expectation of the time (and even now) is that if I cultivate this land and build a house on it -- it becomes "mine". Its not ownership the way we Westerners see ownership but it is an absolute right that as long as I am here on this land and using it my heirs and I have an absolute right to continue to use it in perpetuity. That is the cultural understanding of land use in that place.

The registration process of mulk and miri land between the end of the Ottoman period through the Mandate period is a mess. The British tended to view the situation that if someone could be found to pay taxes, then the land was "owned", but it was easy enough to just squat and avoid paying taxes. Then Israel came along and conveniently became the "bad guy".

On top of all THAT, very little land was actually surveyed, meaning where my land ends and yours begins is a matter of pride, negotiation, use, tradition, honor, etc. And when "yours" means Israel and Jews, it tends to become all mine.

So let see if I understand you correctly. You are suggesting that if an Arab kills and murders another Arab, and then cultivates his land for.... whatever amount of time, and builds a house on it... than in Arab culture, they would all accept that the land thief owns the land? Culturally that would be acceptable?

That logic only makes sense if it's an Arab cultivating Jewish farm land for decades.

I betcha..... complete hypothetical.... I betcha that if in 1921 there was an Arab there farming that land, and then another Arab killed him and started farming that land, I betcha my weeks check, that no Arabs would be supporting this lady getting this farm land.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Indeed, you cannot judge one system by the norms of another

That would go both ways. It creates a conflict that is very difficult to solve though, as each side sees themselves being cheated by the other according to their own norms. How would you suggest it be solved? With respect to private ownership, rather than sovereignty.

I thought you believe in the two state solution and can solve the conflict in a hour.

 

[Roudy]

View attachment 203922

“Our farm is 3.2 hectares and my grandfather farmed it from 1922 until 1954 when my father took it over and then when my father died in 1984, I began farming the land. We grow mainly vegetables which we sell locally in Palestine, ” said Mr Taneeb, speaking through an interpreter.

Visiting Palestinians believe Israel’s goal ‘is to uproot us from our land’

Anyone can say anything.

You need evidence. I've looked at how the land ownership in Israel works. People that can provide documentation of their purchase and ownership of the land, are given property rights under Israeli law. I have watched videos of courts giving documentation of land ownership, issuing legal rights to anyone, that includes Muslims, Christians, Jordanians, Palestinians, even Egyptians.

Anyone can say "My grandfather farmed it from 1922". Great. Did he own it? Maybe you don't know the history, but tons of Jews were slaughtered in the riots and uprisings across Israel all during the early 1920s. Specifically, Jewish farming settlements were attacked during 1922. So this idea that "Well my grandfather was farming it in 1922", doesn't mean much if he stole it from murdered Jews.

If he really was farming the land, that he owned, then he should have a certificate of ownership issued by the British. The Israelis will honors any certificate of ownership issued by the Brits. Present that legal document in Israeli court, and they will be issued property rights to the land.

Otherwise, no. And nor should they get the land.

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Arabs invading and squatting on land does not constitute ownership either.

 

[Roudy]

You make an excellent point. Farming on stolen land does not constitute ownership.

Oddly enough, both yes and no. According to Ottoman land laws, which affect Israeli and Palestinian law today, cultivating miri land does convey a legal right to continued use of the land, including inheritance rights. It does not convey ownership in the sense of private, absolute control (mulk land) but only an absolute right to use of the land -- including farming it and placing structures. So, one of the ways Arab Palestinians attempt to exert control over land is actually to cultivate and farm it.

In modern discourse all land (mulk, miri, mewat, metruki, and musha) tends to be lumped into the category "private Palestinian land", and indeed, this is a deliberate tactic taken early on to give the illusion that there is more private land ownership (mulk) than there really is. And it causes conflict between the two sides.

We have here a family who has been farming the land since 1922. They have no ownership of the land, but they have a long standing "right to cultivate". A right that is embedded in the culture of the peoples of that land. And it comes into direct conflict with Western ideas of land ownership.

Indeed, you cannot judge one system by the norms of another

BTW, the Turks ceded their state land to Palestine.

Wrong again. The Turks did not cede anything. They were defeated in WWI and their land was divided by those that defeated them. And the Turks did not believe in or mention a Palestine or Palestinian people for the 700 years they ruled the land. That is because the name "Palestine" is a European colonialist invention. The Ottoman Turks called the land "Southern Syria".

 

[Natural Citizen]

And theyr selection is a limited one.

It's their. Their selection.

 

[Shusha]

So let see if I understand you correctly. You are suggesting that if an Arab kills and murders another Arab, and then cultivates his land for.... whatever amount of time, and builds a house on it... than in Arab culture, they would all accept that the land thief owns the land? Culturally that would be acceptable?

That logic only makes sense if it's an Arab cultivating Jewish farm land for decades.

I betcha..... complete hypothetical.... I betcha that if in 1921 there was an Arab there farming that land, and then another Arab killed him and started farming that land, I betcha my weeks check, that no Arabs would be supporting this lady getting this farm land.

Uh. No, you don't understand me correctly at all. If an Arab kills and murders another Arab, he would be in prison and the rights to cultivate the land would pass to the murdered man's heirs.

But, I believe you are correct that if unused, unclaimed miri land is subsequently cultivated, the cultivation itself is a claim to a continued, perpetual legal right to continue that cultivation in Ottoman law.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Indeed, you cannot judge one system by the norms of another

That would go both ways. It creates a conflict that is very difficult to solve though, as each side sees themselves being cheated by the other according to their own norms. How would you suggest it be solved? With respect to private ownership, rather than sovereignty.

Fairness Fairies Reduce Jews to the Level of the Paleonasties

One side is an advanced race that can make the desert bloom. The other comprises backward desert nomads who use the land as a pit stop. "Equal justice under the law" is a legalistic fantasy that ignores the real differences in levels of human usefulness between the claimants.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, you cannot judge one system by the norms of another

That would go both ways. It creates a conflict that is very difficult to solve though, as each side sees themselves being cheated by the other according to their own norms. How would you suggest it be solved? With respect to private ownership, rather than sovereignty.

I thought you believe in the two state solution and can solve the conflict in a hour.

I can. Did you not read my post? Sovereignty is easy to solve. Changing a deeply embedded cultural conflict with respect to how private land ownership works is not easy to solve.

 

[Shusha]

Arabs invading and squatting on land does not constitute ownership either.

But it does in the Ottoman land system. So to the Arabs, if no one is using this land, and I start using this land, I have a full legal right to continue to use it in perpetuity. Now, I'm fairly certain that other Arab countries, such as Jordan no longer use this system. (Though, I'd have to check). But the Arab Palestinians are holding on to it because it is useful in creating the illusion that the land is "theirs".

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

But the Arab Palestinians are holding on to it because it is useful in creating the illusion that the land is "theirs".

And israelis dont do this.

 

[Shusha]

But the Arab Palestinians are holding on to it because it is useful in creating the illusion that the land is "theirs".

And israelis dont do this.

Once again (and I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to people) there is a difference between sovereignty and private land ownership. So, as a rule, NO Israelis do not generally go around Israel assuming that they can just build a building or plant a garden on a slice of land and it will make it theirs.

The exception are those who build outposts in Area C which is a direct result of mirroring the Arabs in a -- well, if they can, we can too -- and for the same reasons -- its useful for political illusions. And you'll notice that those outposts get removed by Israel, for the most part without all the freaking out that goes on around here when Arab outposts are removed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

But the Arab Palestinians are holding on to it because it is useful in creating the illusion that the land is "theirs".

And israelis dont do this.

The Israelis Are the Equivalent of Our True Founding Fathers

In an exact parallel, so did American Whites in replacing the savages, whose evolution expiration date was long overdue.