Israel attacks civilians

[Billo_Really]

You're not seeing well. The attitude is that because there ate links posted to someone's personal blog, I'm somehow tasked with disproving the blog contents or else I'm somehow one of "people like you"

Well sorry, I don't have a need to disprove the content of someone's blog.

I'm sorry sister, but if you object to a claim, the burden of proof is on you to show that your objection is not frivolous.

 

[Hollie]

You're not seeing well. The attitude is that because there ate links posted to someone's personal blog, I'm somehow tasked with disproving the blog contents or else I'm somehow one of "people like you"

Well sorry, I don't have a need to disprove the content of someone's blog.

I'm sorry sister, but if you object to a claim, the burden of proof is on you to show that your objection is not frivolous.

I've already made the point that if your sources are derelict, I'm not automatically tasked with refuting those sources. How does someone refute a blog?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Ah, yes. We've come to "people like you".

My caution with blindly accepting what people past on a message board shouldn't cause such alarm on your part. You began with glowing praise of a journalist who is roundly criticized for producing false and invented claims. Instead if posting links to UN or other sources, you post a link to someone's blog. That blog appears to scream out " agenda".

I don't accept your "you people" slight for simply not rolling over and accepting your posted links as unalterable fact.

Hollie,

You seem to have no ability to address the issues raised by this conflict.

You just keep finding excuses to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Why are you here?

And one more time, I give you an opportunity to address substabtive issues.

Source after source tells us 70% or more of the land in Israel still has an Arab owner. Under international law, these owners of the land have a clear right to return to their lands. Expalin why they should be denied their rights under international law.

Sherri

You insist that your claims are inarguable and that we have option but to accept them. You will have to accept that not everyone will be bullied by those tactics.

And one more time I feel a need to explain that your posting of selected paragraphs that derive from someone's personal blog are not cause for blind acceptance as ultimate fact.

Hollie,

I did not say my claims are inarguable, I asked you to respond to what I said, and I provided links to two documents on the UNISPAL website and the so called blog you keep complaining about itself contains links to other UN documents and other sources.

All of these sources clearly tell us and are in agreement with one another that over 70% of the land of Palestine was owned by Arabs before the State of Israel was created by the UN. Further, they show Jews only owned no more than 6.2% of the land then.

One more time, if you are disputing this as factual, please provide sources that show all of these UN documents and other sources are in error.

One more time, explain why the Arab owners should not be allowed to return to their lands in Palestine, when international law clearly gives them that right.

Sherri

 

[Hossfly]

Hollie,

You seem to have no ability to address the issues raised by this conflict.

You just keep finding excuses to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Why are you here?

And one more time, I give you an opportunity to address substabtive issues.

Source after source tells us 70% or more of the land in Israel still has an Arab owner. Under international law, these owners of the land have a clear right to return to their lands. Expalin why they should be denied their rights under international law.

Sherri

You insist that your claims are inarguable and that we have option but to accept them. You will have to accept that not everyone will be bullied by those tactics.

And one more time I feel a need to explain that your posting of selected paragraphs that derive from someone's personal blog are not cause for blind acceptance as ultimate fact.

Hollie,

I did not say my claims are inarguable, I asked you to respond to what I said, and I provided links to two documents on the UNISPAL website and the so called blog you keep complaining about itself contains links to other UN documents and other sources.

All of these sources clearly tell us and are in agreement with one another that over 70% of the land of Palestine was owned by Arabs before the State of Israel was created by the UN. Further, they show Jews only owned no more than 6.2% of the land then.

One more time, if you are disputing this as factual, please provide sources that show all of these UN documents and other sources are in error.

One more time, explain why the Arab owners should not be allowed to return to their lands in Palestine, when international law clearly gives them that right.

Sherri

Maybe it's because the Israeli government outranks the ineffectual, cowardly and pro-Muslim UN.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You insist that your claims are inarguable and that we have option but to accept them. You will have to accept that not everyone will be bullied by those tactics.

And one more time I feel a need to explain that your posting of selected paragraphs that derive from someone's personal blog are not cause for blind acceptance as ultimate fact.

Hollie,

I did not say my claims are inarguable, I asked you to respond to what I said, and I provided links to two documents on the UNISPAL website and the so called blog you keep complaining about itself contains links to other UN documents and other sources.

All of these sources clearly tell us and are in agreement with one another that over 70% of the land of Palestine was owned by Arabs before the State of Israel was created by the UN. Further, they show Jews only owned no more than 6.2% of the land then.

One more time, if you are disputing this as factual, please provide sources that show all of these UN documents and other sources are in error.

One more time, explain why the Arab owners should not be allowed to return to their lands in Palestine, when international law clearly gives them that right.

Sherri

Maybe it's because the Israeli government outranks the ineffectual, cowardly and pro-Muslim UN.

Hossfly,

You are not answering the questions either.

And we are not simply discussing the UN, much of this data comes from documents maintained by others, such as the British, as they administered their Mandate.

Here is a link to a document that can be read online and consists of over 1300 pages, The Survey Of Palestine, prepared by the British, and it addresses in great detail the makeup of the land of Palestine, pre-1948.

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

Why would any person expect Israel, which did not exist in our world pre-1948 to have records of land ownership in Palestine in pre-1948?

Sherri

 

[Hossfly]

I think many of us are familiar with Robert “they’re beating me and I deserve it” Fisk. Journalism used to be a profession of ethics and personal credibility. Robert Fisk was such a hack that slanted journalism and bised reporting was described as “Fisking”.

I don’t mean to discredit your comments but Robert Fisk is a laughing stock in the journalist community.

Urban Dictionary: fisking
Fisking
The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.

Fisking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term fisking is blogosphere slang describing a point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, or disputes the analysis in a statement, article, or essay.[1]
Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, defined the term as:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.[2]


I tried to address the ownership of land in a previous post. I'm just not convinced by arguments from Arabs / moslems that land was stolen as they claim. I know enough about the islamist precepts of waqf and islamist ideology to believe that claims to their entitlement to "Muslim Lands" carries with it a lot of historical and ideological baggage.

Hollie,

I am quite familiar with this popular tactic, of right wing types ,of attacking the messenger to deflect from the truth being told about events unfolding with respect to Israel. And it has really gotten old, and simply does not work anymore. It has lost its effectiveness.

Robert Fisk has worked as a journalist in Lebanon for deacades, and he has written thousands of articles for papers and written two very detailed books about the events unfloding in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, entitled Pity The Nation and The Great War For Civilisation.

Here is what Robert Fisk reported about land ownership in Israel, pre 1948, and as I write this, I realize I was wrong about the percentage of land with an Arab and Israeli owner today, that figure is 70%, not 90%. And it is not only Israel who holds records establishing these facts, Turkey does, too.


"The Custodian of Absentee Property did not choose to discuss politics. But when I asked him how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants — an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property — he said he believed that ‘about 70 percent’ might fall into this category. If this figure was accurate — and it should be remembered that over half of Israel in 1948 consisted of the Negev desert — then it suggested that Arabs owned a far greater proportion of that part of Palestine which became Israel than has previously been imagined. Jacob Manor seemed unaffected by this fact. ‘Do you really believe that the Palestinians want to come back?’ he asked. ‘Most of them have died. And their children are in good positions now.’

If this extraordinary statement involved a blindness to reality, it provided no warning of the storm of anger and abuse which my series of articles in The Times was to generate among Israelis and their supporters in Britain. At some length and in careful detail I had told the story of David Damiani, Kanaan Abut Khadra, Fatima Zamzam and of another Palestinian woman, Rifka Boulos, who had lost land in Jerusalem. To visit their former homes and lands had been like touching history. For I had also told of the lives of those who now lived on or near those lands. Save for one mention of a PLO official in Beirut — the spokesman slugging champagne at the diplomatic reception — Yassir Arafat’s organisation did not receive a single reference in the thousands of words I wrote. The Times also carried a long interview with Jacob Manor. But the reaction to the articles — a series that dealt with Palestinians as individual human beings rather than as some kind of refugee caste manipulated by fanatics and ‘terrorists’ — was deeply instructive."

Robert Fisk - The Keys to Palestine

Sherri

I guess Sherri thinks Winston Churchill was a liar when he said that the Arabs came in hordes from their poor surrounding countries when the Jews had jobs for them, the same reason the Hispanics are coming to the U.S. and the Muslims to Europe -- for jobs. By the way, Sherri, why did your better half leave that wonderful Muslim country of Iran?


jt2

 

[Billo_Really]

I guess Sherri thinks Winston Churchill was a liar when he said that the Arabs came in hordes from their poor surrounding countries when the Jews had jobs for them, the same reason the Hispanics are coming to the U.S. and the Muslims to Europe -- for jobs. By the way, Sherri, why did your better half leave that wonderful Muslim country of Iran?jt2

Jobs? What jobs?

Here's one of the typical settlement rules for land ownership the zionists set up...

"Keren ha-Yesod agreements: Employment of labour

The following provisions are included:

'Article 7 - The settler hereby undertakes that ... if and whenever he may be obliged to hire help, he will hire Jewish workmen only.'​

"In the similar agreement for the Emek colonies, there is a provision as follows:

'Article 11 - The settler undertakes ... not to hire any outside labour except Jewish labourers.'"​

Arabs have jobs where they only hire "jewish laborers"? How does that happen?

Jobs, my ass!

 

[Hossfly]

I guess Sherri thinks Winston Churchill was a liar when he said that the Arabs came in hordes from their poor surrounding countries when the Jews had jobs for them, the same reason the Hispanics are coming to the U.S. and the Muslims to Europe -- for jobs. By the way, Sherri, why did your better half leave that wonderful Muslim country of Iran?jt2

Jobs? What jobs?

Here's one of the typical settlement rules for land ownership the zionists set up...

"Keren ha-Yesod agreements: Employment of labour

The following provisions are included:

'Article 7 - The settler hereby undertakes that ... if and whenever he may be obliged to hire help, he will hire Jewish workmen only.'​

"In the similar agreement for the Emek colonies, there is a provision as follows:

'Article 11 - The settler undertakes ... not to hire any outside labour except Jewish labourers.'"​

Arabs have jobs where they only hire "jewish laborers"? How does that happen?

Jobs, my ass!

I believe I was talking about Churchill's observations.

 

[Billo_Really]

I believe I was talking about Churchill's observations.

So the jobs were in England?

 

[freedombecki]

Hollie,

I did not say my claims are inarguable, I asked you to respond to what I said, and I provided links to two documents on the UNISPAL website and the so called blog you keep complaining about itself contains links to other UN documents and other sources.

All of these sources clearly tell us and are in agreement with one another that over 70% of the land of Palestine was owned by Arabs before the State of Israel was created by the UN. Further, they show Jews only owned no more than 6.2% of the land then.

One more time, if you are disputing this as factual, please provide sources that show all of these UN documents and other sources are in error.

One more time, explain why the Arab owners should not be allowed to return to their lands in Palestine, when international law clearly gives them that right.

Sherri

Maybe it's because the Israeli government outranks the ineffectual, cowardly and pro-Muslim UN.

Hossfly,

You are not answering the questions either.

And we are not simply discussing the UN, much of this data comes from documents maintained by others, such as the British, as they administered their Mandate.

Here is a link to a document that can be read online and consists of over 1300 pages, The Survey Of Palestine, prepared by the British, and it addresses in great detail the makeup of the land of Palestine, pre-1948.

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

Why would any person expect Israel, which did not exist in our world pre-1948 to have records of land ownership in Palestine in pre-1948?

Sherri

Sherri, the information you seek with re to the humanitarian formation and acceptance of the State of Israel may be here: United Nations Official Document

You may not agree with it, but there are links to a lot of the period thinking and documentations of decisions made by the newly-formed United Nations, which at charter set point meeting, engaged approximately 51 nations. Their authority was to establish peace in nations beleaguered by a lack of it. Allies powers were very weary of Arab interference in World War II and their helpfulness to the Nazy Party of Germany. One of the concessions they required was a place for disenfranchised Jewish people who had no wish to return to Germany for any reason after their losses there were becoming fully recognized and acknowledged.

It was not set as a punishment so much as a demand that the Arabs live in peace with its occupants and quilt pawning their internal enemies off on other countries, which caused the EU problems for literally centuries of trying to make room for all the people the Arabs rejected. The Arabs were never satisfied. Not ever. They're still not, and nobody here can help it except to try to support the UN's decision after the war to place millions of Jews back to where they came from in the first place.

That is my understanding of the reason the United Nations was chartered--to bring peace back to the Middle East and ensure that Jewish persons had a homeland to call their own.

As to everybody here answering your questions, I doubt any of us here could satisfy your demands. But I can channel you to early decisions made by the newly-chartered United Nations.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sherri, the information you seek with re to the humanitarian formation and acceptance of the State of Israel may be here: United Nations Official Document

You may not agree with it, but there are links to a lot of the period thinking and documentations of decisions made by the newly-formed United Nations, which at charter set point meeting, engaged approximately 51 nations. Their authority was to establish peace in nations beleaguered by a lack of it. Allies powers were very weary of Arab interference in World War II and their helpfulness to the Nazy Party of Germany. One of the concessions they required was a place for disenfranchised Jewish people who had no wish to return to Germany for any reason after their losses there were becoming fully recognized and acknowledged.

It was not set as a punishment so much as a demand that the Arabs live in peace with its occupants and quilt pawning their internal enemies off on other countries, which caused the EU problems for literally centuries of trying to make room for all the people the Arabs rejected. The Arabs were never satisfied. Not ever. They're still not, and nobody here can help it except to try to support the UN's decision after the war to place millions of Jews back to where they came from in the first place.

That is my understanding of the reason the United Nations was chartered--to bring peace back to the Middle East and ensure that Jewish persons had a homeland to call their own.

As to everybody here answering your questions, I doubt any of us here could satisfy your demands. But I can channel you to early decisions made by the newly-chartered United Nations.

That's a bad link.

Here's a map of land ownership in Palestine at the time of the jewish migration.



As you can see, arabs owned 90% of the land in Palestine.

Now, here's a map of the UN Partition Plan.



As you can see, the UN provided for two states, not just the jewish one.

Now, here's a map of the territories Israel has illegally occupied since 1967.



As you can see, it's not just the arabs, that are causing this problem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Maybe it's because the Israeli government outranks the ineffectual, cowardly and pro-Muslim UN.

Hossfly,

You are not answering the questions either.

And we are not simply discussing the UN, much of this data comes from documents maintained by others, such as the British, as they administered their Mandate.

Here is a link to a document that can be read online and consists of over 1300 pages, The Survey Of Palestine, prepared by the British, and it addresses in great detail the makeup of the land of Palestine, pre-1948.

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

Why would any person expect Israel, which did not exist in our world pre-1948 to have records of land ownership in Palestine in pre-1948?

Sherri

Sherri, the information you seek with re to the humanitarian formation and acceptance of the State of Israel may be here: United Nations Official Document

You may not agree with it, but there are links to a lot of the period thinking and documentations of decisions made by the newly-formed United Nations, which at charter set point meeting, engaged approximately 51 nations. Their authority was to establish peace in nations beleaguered by a lack of it. Allies powers were very weary of Arab interference in World War II and their helpfulness to the Nazy Party of Germany. One of the concessions they required was a place for disenfranchised Jewish people who had no wish to return to Germany for any reason after their losses there were becoming fully recognized and acknowledged.

It was not set as a punishment so much as a demand that the Arabs live in peace with its occupants and quilt pawning their internal enemies off on other countries, which caused the EU problems for literally centuries of trying to make room for all the people the Arabs rejected. The Arabs were never satisfied. Not ever. They're still not, and nobody here can help it except to try to support the UN's decision after the war to place millions of Jews back to where they came from in the first place.

That is my understanding of the reason the United Nations was chartered--to bring peace back to the Middle East and ensure that Jewish persons had a homeland to call their own.

As to everybody here answering your questions, I doubt any of us here could satisfy your demands. But I can channel you to early decisions made by the newly-chartered United Nations.

Your link shows that an armistice was called by UN security Council resolution.

Nobody lost that war.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Maybe it's because the Israeli government outranks the ineffectual, cowardly and pro-Muslim UN.

Hossfly,

You are not answering the questions either.

And we are not simply discussing the UN, much of this data comes from documents maintained by others, such as the British, as they administered their Mandate.

Here is a link to a document that can be read online and consists of over 1300 pages, The Survey Of Palestine, prepared by the British, and it addresses in great detail the makeup of the land of Palestine, pre-1948.

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

Why would any person expect Israel, which did not exist in our world pre-1948 to have records of land ownership in Palestine in pre-1948?

Sherri

Sherri, the information you seek with re to the humanitarian formation and acceptance of the State of Israel may be here: United Nations Official Document

You may not agree with it, but there are links to a lot of the period thinking and documentations of decisions made by the newly-formed United Nations, which at charter set point meeting, engaged approximately 51 nations. Their authority was to establish peace in nations beleaguered by a lack of it. Allies powers were very weary of Arab interference in World War II and their helpfulness to the Nazy Party of Germany. One of the concessions they required was a place for disenfranchised Jewish people who had no wish to return to Germany for any reason after their losses there were becoming fully recognized and acknowledged.

It was not set as a punishment so much as a demand that the Arabs live in peace with its occupants and quilt pawning their internal enemies off on other countries, which caused the EU problems for literally centuries of trying to make room for all the people the Arabs rejected. The Arabs were never satisfied. Not ever. They're still not, and nobody here can help it except to try to support the UN's decision after the war to place millions of Jews back to where they came from in the first place.

That is my understanding of the reason the United Nations was chartered--to bring peace back to the Middle East and ensure that Jewish persons had a homeland to call their own.

As to everybody here answering your questions, I doubt any of us here could satisfy your demands. But I can channel you to early decisions made by the newly-chartered United Nations.

freedombecki,

Your link, addressing events at the UN in July of 1948, does not address the points I was making in my prior posts.

What I have been saying in my posts is that pre 1948, over 70% of the land inside Israel was owned by Arabs, that the UN Partition Plan did nothing to change private land ownership of Arabs or Jews, and that under intl law when people flee their homes in war they are allowed to return to their homes when hostilities end. And that right there is the essence of the right of return issue that Palestinian refugees who fled their homes in 1948 are arguing, that they are still waiting to be allowed to return to their lands in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The right of return issue is a separate issue from the issue of whether Palestine should be divided into two states, an Arab State and a Jewish State or one state, with all people having equal rights.

I have been trying to get other posters to respond to what I am saying here, to no avail.

What your link does not address, when it addresses the UN calling for cessation of violence by Arab nations, is the fact that before the Partition Plan was even voted upon, in November of 1947, and before neighboring countries were involved in any fighting, Israel already had begun ethnically cleansing Arab villages and taking land allocated to the Arab State under the Partition Plan. This is addressed by Israeli Historian Tom Segev in his book, 1949. I have read that I think about 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed from their homes before Arab nations engaged in any fighting with Israel. Israeli historian Illan Pappe addresses the plan Israel carried out to ethnically cleanse the lands of Israel of its Arab residents in the now classic book, which I believe can be read in its entirety online, The Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine.

Sherri

 

[P F Tinmore]

You can call it a tactic if you wish but that does not change the fact that Fisk has a reputation (that he built himself), of slanted journalism. Fisk writing a book covering recent Middle Eastern history is really immaterial.

I think that if anyone examines geopolitics in the islamist Middle East there comes an understanding that the focal point of the myriad issues confronting the Arab/Moslem world has everything to do with the existence of Jews and a Jewish state on land considered to be an islamist waqf, Arab intransigence, an inability to compromise and an injured Arab / Moslem psyche that is still reeling from Western ascendency. Arabs / moslems were once a formidable military force and their wars of conquest and subjugation girdled the globe. The point of contention that grips the Arab / Moslem psyche and which fuels their 800 year-old grudge is the humiliating incompetence and ineptitude of theocratic totalitarianism as compared to liberal democracy. This enrages Arabs / Moslems and their wounded, adolescent pride is still suffering.[/QUOT

Hollie,

You can choose to buy into all the distorted truths you choose, and I can choose to believe Truth, including the truth about who Robert Fisk is, a principled and reputable journalist who has spent decades reporting on uncomfortable truths about what is really happening in the Middle East. There is such Freedom in the Truth, I can only pity those who deny it and distort it! And while there was much criticism of his reporting on the stories of the individual refugees and the 70% of the land which has both an Arab and Israeli owner, primarily because they showed the human side of the refugees, these facts were not proven to be false.


Israel did not just walk into an uninhabited land, which had no owners of the land in 1948. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in 1947 through 1949 that removed over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine, Arabs made up over two thirds of the population of Palestine and Jews owned only 6% of the land of Palestine, these facts are reported in UN documents.


"During the 25 years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewry. Over this period the Jewish population of Palestine, composed principally of immigrants, increased from less than 10 per cent in 1917 to over 30 per cent in 1947. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after the Second World War. Great Britain, as the Mandatory Power, tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. A partition scheme, a formula for provincial autonomy, a unified independent Palestine were all considered and abandoned, and in 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations."

"The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms. Regardless of the historical origins of the conflict, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter-promises, and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and some 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political co-operation among them, whether voluntary or induced by constitutional arrangements."

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part II: 1947-1977 (30 June 1979)


"At the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent. 141/ From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third. A good part of this was due to births within Palestine but legal immigration alone accounted for over 376,000, with illegal immigration being estimated at another 65,000 - a total of 440,000. 142/ This Jewish population was primarily urban - about 70 per cent to 75 per cent in and around the cities of Jerusalem, Jaffa-Tel Aviv and Haifa. 143/

Land holding patterns had also changed considerably. From the 650,000 dunums held by Jewish organizations in 1920, of the total land area of 26 million dunums, the figure at the end of 1946 had reached 1,625,000 dunums - an increase of about 250 per cent 144/ and Jewish settlement had displaced large numbers of Palestinian Arab peasants. Even so, this area represented only 6.2 per cent of the total area of Palestine and 12 per cent of the cultivable land. "


The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)


Why would the indigenous peoples be unhappy with the Partition Plan? It allocated over half of the land of Palestine to a Jewish State, when Jews made up less than one third of the population and owned only 6.2% of the land of Palestine.

When we consider the facts of who made up the population of Palestine in 1947, over two thirds were Arab, and the land ownership, only 6% of the land owned by Jews, the fact that Robert Fisk learned what he did about the large percentage of the land that today has both Arab and Jewish owners makes perfect sense. The allocation of a land as a Jewish State, we must remember, did not change underlying private land ownership, the only thing that did change was state land ownership, which did change and was turned over to the Jewish State when Israel was created in 1947/1948.

Sherri

...the only thing that did change was state land ownership, which did change and was turned over to the Jewish State when Israel was created in 1947/1948.

Who turned it over and when did that happen?

 

[docmauser1]

Keren ha-Yesod agreements: Employment of labour
'Article 7 - The settler hereby undertakes that ... if and whenever he may be obliged to hire help, he will hire Jewish workmen only.'
"In the similar agreement for the Emek colonies, there is a provision as follows:
'Article 11 - The settler undertakes ... not to hire any outside labour except Jewish labourers.'"

Great! Jews should have jobs too.

Arabs have jobs where they only hire "jewish laborers"?

Arabs should be obsessing themselves with getting a life and a job.

How does that happen?

Very simple, actually. The jobs palistanians have, are in the so-called government sector, subsisting on the international community handouts. $22 mln. monthly pays their salaries alone. Honorable P F Tinmore likes to drivel about palistanian "industries", but the fact is there isn't any except the industry of occupation, which palistanians have perfected to the level of absurd - Jesus has recently become a model palistanian shahid, for one example.

 

[docmauser1]

Nobody lost that war.

Funny palistanians babble "occupation".

 

[docmauser1]

Here's a map of land ownership in Palestine at the time of the jewish migration. As you can see, arabs owned 90% of the land in Palestine.

In arab dreams, of course.
7% of the land of the west palestine was owned by jews.
7-8% was owned by absentee landowners, arab effendi clans.
16% was owned by various churches and other foreign entities.
The remainder - 70% - was state lands, owned first by the sultan and later by the Govt of Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here's a map of land ownership in Palestine at the time of the jewish migration. As you can see, arabs owned 90% of the land in Palestine.

In arab dreams, of course.
7% of the land of the west palestine was owned by jews.
7-8% was owned by absentee landowners, arab effendi clans.
16% was owned by various churches and other foreign entities.
The remainder - 70% - was state lands, owned first by the sultan and later by the Govt of Palestine.

Essentially correct. The Palestinians had land rights to the state lands These rights could be bought, sold, or inherited. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, these Palestinians retained the rights to their land.

Of course no matter who owned pieces of land it was all Palestinian land.

 

[docmauser1]

Here's a map of land ownership in Palestine at the time of the jewish migration. As you can see, arabs owned 90% of the land in Palestine.

In arab dreams, of course.
7% of the land of the west palestine was owned by jews.
7-8% was owned by absentee landowners, arab effendi clans.
16% was owned by various churches and other foreign entities.
The remainder - 70% - was state lands, owned first by the sultan and later by the Govt of Palestine.

Essentially correct.

Oh, I'm honored!

The Palestinians had land rights to the state lands These rights could be bought, sold, or inherited. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, these Palestinians retained the rights to their land.

Nah. Palistanians, being a 1964 invention, are out of the picture, of course. And major arab immigrants retained the rights to nothing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- The UN office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (OCHA) said in its weekly report covering some Israeli violations from 20 to 26 June that Israel demolished 15 Palestinian homes and structures in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem during the reporting period.

According to its report, 20 Palestinians were rendered homeless as a result of these demolitions.

The report recalled that Israel has razed 371 Palestinian structures, including 124 residential buildings since the beginning of the current year and consequently displaced 600 Palestinians.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/...DsjZD0DKhQcTOtoOfAmHhEJjrLSoZ8CDiJIgvRxKd4xc=