Because it is not true. Half of the Palestinians were dispossessed before the beginning of the 1948 war. The 1948 war kept Israel from cleansing all of Palestine.They were dispossessed AFTER they joined 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and dispossess the Jews. Why do you always leave that part out ?montelatici, et al,
I know that you think that "land ownership" has something to do with sovereignty. But is doesn't.
- Land ownership is a real estate matter in civil law.
- Sovereignty is a matter of governance.
(COMMENT)You mean the 85%+ owned by the Christians and Muslims before partition?
As an example in the difference is in the case of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which does not rule over a Hashemite Population. Jordan has a population that is ethnically Arab 98% (Native to the Kingdom are mostly descended from village-dwellers and Bedouins originating in the Arabian Peninsula. Half of Jordan's population are of Palestinian origin.); with minorities including Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%.
In contrast, the Hashemites (Arab chieftain Quraysh (Quraysh, at one time the ruling tribe of Mecca, that also guarded its most sacred shrine, the Kaʿbah), in the same lineage as the Prophet Ismai) are descendants of the ancient Banu Hahsim (Muhammad - PBUH - was born in 570 of the Hāshemite (Banū Hāshim) branch of the noble house of ʿAbd Manāf; he never lacked protection by his clan).
Most Respectfully,
R
Rocco et al.
No, I have no doubt that ownership of land has no relationship with sovereignty. But if the owners of the land are dispossessed of the land, it is theft, regardless of sovereignty. The Japanese may own most of the private land in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not under Japanese sovereignty. However, if the U.S. makes up a law that takes the land from the Japanese owners, it is theft.
Overall, though, the 1948 war had no effect on Palestine's legal status.
Because it had none due to a law created in 1923 that gave the land to the Jews for their national home.