rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,411
- 4,954
- 290
No the land were bought by an organization representng jews of Israel.
All the private lands submitted to KKL or some other zionist organization
So admit Your mistake?
Explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- Thread starter xdangerousxdavex
- Start date
No the land were bought by an organization representng jews of Israel.
All the private lands submitted to KKL or some other zionist organization
So admit Your mistake?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,467
- 4,684
- 1,815
Picayune.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,467
- 4,684
- 1,815
But that was only about 7% of the land.
Americans had "Manifest Destiny" every bit as compelling as a Kingdom that ceased to exist 3000 years ago. The odd thing is - no other nation uses a long defunct kingdom as a rational for territorial aquisition.
There was certainly ethnic cleansing and there still is through a complicated system of permits, citizenship, family unification laws and residency permits.
And right there is your bias. It's like saying that Europeans are "simply all Europeans". They aren't. There is cultural and ethnic variation.
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
The Smoking Gun Arab Immigration into Palestine 1922-1931 Middle East Quarterly
There were migration out of the middle east in the 1880-90 due to disease and in the 1903-30 because of famine.
It is incorrect to believe the arab population was static. There was also a push of arabs to move to the mandate.
The idea of the holy land being a land without a people was not that far from the truth. During the 19th C the Ottomans were not getting enough taxes from the area to cover the costs of running it. Problem was it was a cross road the rest of the empire. As populations move out, or just moved, there was a need to draw those who would develop the land and invest in businesses and create jobs that contribute to taxes. Jews had long wanted to move back to their historic and religious homeland, so Ottomans allowed not just jews from other part of the empire but from outside the empire to buy land and open businesses. Arabs at that time did not have the money, but jews did and their love of the land made it productive in a way it had not been in more than a thousand years. Jews brought modern ideas and found ways to water the land that had been lacking since the time of the romans. They clears malaria swamps and cleaned water that had been sources of cholera that had wasted the population away. Typhoid and yellow fever had been epidemic in the area, but as sanitation and modern hospitals as well as safer food practices changed the area.
There were people in what became the mandate but it was a fraction of what had lived there during roman times. Most were workers and not owners of the land. They were beholden to the land owner who more often than not were outsiders from Egypt, Lebanon and other part of what Syria. There were tribes and bedouins but they did not have permanent homes in the area. There were mostly herders and move their flocks to new grazing area. These were not people who could or would develop the land. Many did not have any national identity nor were they willing to be forced to military service. To say there were a 'palestinian' people was incorrect. If they identified with any large place beyond their tribes, it would mostly be syrians as the general area was often referred to under various muslim empires. They identified by the cities the sanjuks were named after, like city states. They were not people that had an identity other than speaking arabic and for the most part were muslims.
The idea of a palestinian people came with the mandate as identity cards and even passport came into use. They were british palestinians and subject to british rules and mix of ottoman and british laws. Much of what we consider the modern state came from the british but not all arabs were eager to embrace or understand it.
It is hard to explain what live would have been like in the early 20th C but it was a far cry from what we in the west would consider as civilized or organized. The arab throughout the middle east were far from ready to take on statehood and the turmoil in those days and even today reflect that. Even from one tribe to another their organization varied widely and rivalries and feuds dominated their ambitions of control. It was a violent volatile world for them. Peace in the muslim would had more often than not come by force and was fleeting.
Between the arabs and jews, the jews were better organized and more capable of building a country that could stand on it's own. A jewish state was far more probable and desirable than the alternative of internal struggles and war between the factions that had dominated so much of the history of the region. Even during the arab revolts against the Ottomans, it was extremely difficult to unite and organize the arab. They were often more interested in killing each other than outing the turks. When they did try to run a city, Damascus, it was an absolute failure. They were fighting each other and had no understanding if the mechanics of operating the machines for power, water or sewage. They did not know how to run a hospital, keep streets clean, supplying food or feed the masses. They were more interested in pillaging the city than running it.
Every state created fell into their own civil wars. There was no peaceful transition from Ottoman or mandate rule. Sauds over threw the hashimites. Hashimites were over thrown by various military coups. Small states were conquered and made into large states. Land was captured and borders fluctuated. Families fought within themselves for power............
The idea then of a palestinian state was at best a pipe dream. Arabs did not want them to have a state, they had desire to take the land as their own or ambitions of a greater arab state.
How much has it all changed? The region is still struggling with many of the same problems, just the tools of warfare have gotten more deadly.
and the palestinians are little more ready for statehood than they were 70 yrs ago.
the problem was not Israel, it is the people themselves.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,127
- 280
You just have to realize that taking land and evicting the people that lived on those lands does not endear the people that lived and owned that land to the people who took the land and evicted the people living there.
They will have hostility towards the people that came from somewhere else and dispossessed them. It is just human nature. They don't care if the people that dispossessed them claim to have ancestors that lived there 2000 years ago. The Roma came from India, they say. If after WW2 the British decided that the Roma had an historical tie to Delhi and the province and signed a declaration that indicated that a Roma home was to be established in Delhi, do you think the Indians would have agreed?
So which Jewish country in Europe sent its Jews to colonise Palestine ? This is what your definition says is the meaning
Read the definition again freddy boy and then tell the board which Jewish nation sent its Jews to colonise Palestine ?
The truth is he cant stop it can he so the question is moot. He does not have to accept it or recognise it does he, nor does he have to negotiate any mutual borders or lasting peace. He can just sit back and ignore any calls for recognition as the muslims have done over the years. Will the P.A. recognise Israel as the Jewish state and stop all violence and belligerence even though it is part of their National Charter ?
He cant stop it, but the Palestinians have no intentions of giving up their hand outs and having to raise their own money so they will keep on blaming the Jews for refusing to allow them to make a state. The gullible are falling for the sob story already
Why should they as Britain is not the SOVEREIGN power. But the LoN was the SOVERIEGN power in the M.E. and could dispose of the land as they saw fit. When you stop applying 2015 laws and rules to the situation and look at the semantics then you will realise that you are just spouting Nazi Jew hatred ideology
Who was the sovereign power in 1916. Who was the sovereign power in 1923. Who had the legal right to dispose of the land in any manner they saw fit ?
It started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt in 1967.So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?
SDo when did the arab muslim violence and terrorism start then ?
No start applying 1923 international laws and Sovereignty to the equation, then what the LoN covenant actually says about palestine
So what were the names of these Jewish Nations then, and stop hedging when you are losing the argument to facts
Similar threads
