Who Are The Palestinians?

[montelatici]

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.

Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.

It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region. When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel. There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name. They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
They had the right to call it what they wanted.
It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan. At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab. They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself? Palestine II?
With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel. Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called. They don't want to be Israeli? They leave. Most stayed and are content as Israelis. They don't want to leave or change names.
Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state. Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
Time you accept that.

Here are just a few of the lies from Aris.

The Palestinians already considered themselves Palestinians when the Mandate was established. The Christians and Muslims sent a Palestinian delegation to London at the outset of the Mandate (1922) to defend their rights. In letters to the British they called themselves the People of Palestine as per below:

"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

The Christians and Muslims rejected being forced to be ruled by Jews in their own home from the outset of the Mandate.

At the end of the Mandate, almost all the immigrants in Palestine were Jews.

From the 1946 UN Survey of Palestine available for download from Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

To be precise, of the 414,456 immigrants that entered Palestine between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews. As reported in the UN's final survey of Palestine below.

Most of the Muslims and Christians that were living in what is now Israel were expelled. Of the approximately 750,00 Christians and Muslims that were in Israel's present day borders, only 150,000 were not expelled. As per UN Report A/1905 of 28 September 1951.

"14. About 150 000 of the Arab population of Palestine stayed in Israel and of these some were "refugees" in that their homes were destroyed and their means of livelihood gone. They were thus temporarily as much dependent on relief as those who had left the country, and when the United Nations took over the relief of refugees it was agreed with the Israel Government that a certain number of both Jews and Arabs in this position should be given assistance."

A 1905 of 28 September 1951

 

[montelatici]

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.

Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH

Table 1, says nothing about land ownership. Other non-Jews are the Samaritans, Greeks and Latins that are included in the population surveys, including Christian Church owned lands.

Nice try, moron.

From your link that shows who is the real moron


51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-

Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


NOT OWNED just held as in leased or rented from Ottoman landlords. And the results are based on the taxes raised on the land.

No, it states clearly how many dunams were owned by the Jews and how many dunams were owned by the Arabs, the Christian churches, Samaritans, Greeks and Levantines (those of European descent) Jews owned less than 7%, the Arabs and other non-Jews more than 85%.

The data is included in the UN's Survey of Palestine published in 1946 and downloadable from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

The population table is in Volume 2. page 566.

 

[montelatici]

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

 

[aris2chat]

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

The Ottoman land classification and ownership, which the mandate worked from has been explained several times already and well documented studies on legal and illegal immigration during the mandate have been posted.
You still cling to your page 566 like it was the holy grail, but it is far from it.
You need to find a new song.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

(COMMENT)

Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term. it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. [(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.]

The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State (the newly created State of Israel); which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force (a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel). Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority (legally, morally or otherwise) to attempt such a military effort. And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people (the UN recognized Jewish Agency) of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers (the UN General Assembly).

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State. That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

The Ottoman land classification and ownership, which the mandate worked from has been explained several times already and well documented studies on legal and illegal immigration during the mandate have been posted.
You still cling to your page 566 like it was the holy grail, but it is far from it.
You need to find a new song.

No page 566 shows the facts regarding land ownership. Page 563 indicates who the "others" are, the Christians: Christian Churches and what were called Levantines, those of European descent mainly descendants Italians, French, Greeks who were not Arabs. Having ties to Europe, they got the hell out.

From page 563, Vol 2 Survey of Palestine:

"The estimates presented below must therefore be regarded only as
rough approximations. They are presented in the form of a series
of tables in which the main categories of capital are enumerated and
the shares of Jews, Arabs and Others are indicated. In many
cases it has been possible to distinguish the share of Jews only
while Arabs and all other classes of owners are lumped together.
In the main, owners who are neither Arab nor Jewish consist of
non-Arab Christians....."

Immigration is also depicted, and it includes illegal immigration.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

(COMMENT)

Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term. it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. [(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.]

The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State (the newly created State of Israel); which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force (a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel). Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority (legally, morally or otherwise) to attempt such a military effort. And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people (the UN recognized Jewish Agency) of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers (the UN General Assembly).

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State. That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.

Most Respectfully,
R

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans. The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

(COMMENT)

Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term. it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. [(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.]

The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State (the newly created State of Israel); which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force (a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel). Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority (legally, morally or otherwise) to attempt such a military effort. And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people (the UN recognized Jewish Agency) of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers (the UN General Assembly).

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State. That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.

Most Respectfully,
R

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans. The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

How do ya like that? The Arabs had every right to stop the killing & ethnic cleasing of Christians by Israel. And here I actually believed Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East that has citizens of virtually all living faiths with their houses of worship protected by the Israeli government. Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters..

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events. It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.

(COMMENT)

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion. There was not. There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" (a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again) the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns. It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.

The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

(COMMENT)

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home. It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home. It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.

Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.

It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region. When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel. There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name. They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
They had the right to call it what they wanted.
It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan. At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab. They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself? Palestine II?
With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel. Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called. They don't want to be Israeli? They leave. Most stayed and are content as Israelis. They don't want to leave or change names.
Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state. Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
Time you accept that.

Here are just a few of the lies from Aris.

The Palestinians already considered themselves Palestinians when the Mandate was established. The Christians and Muslims sent a Palestinian delegation to London at the outset of the Mandate (1922) to defend their rights. In letters to the British they called themselves the People of Palestine as per below:

"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. - See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

The Christians and Muslims rejected being forced to be ruled by Jews in their own home from the outset of the Mandate.

At the end of the Mandate, almost all the immigrants in Palestine were Jews.

From the 1946 UN Survey of Palestine available for download from Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner University. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

To be precise, of the 414,456 immigrants that entered Palestine between 1920 and 1946, 376,415 were Jews and only 38,041 were non-Jews. As reported in the UN's final survey of Palestine below.

View attachment 34599



Most of the Muslims and Christians that were living in what is now Israel were expelled. Of the approximately 750,00 Christians and Muslims that were in Israel's present day borders, only 150,000 were not expelled. As per UN Report A/1905 of 28 September 1951.

"14. About 150 000 of the Arab population of Palestine stayed in Israel and of these some were "refugees" in that their homes were destroyed and their means of livelihood gone. They were thus temporarily as much dependent on relief as those who had left the country, and when the United Nations took over the relief of refugees it was agreed with the Israel Government that a certain number of both Jews and Arabs in this position should be given assistance."

A 1905 of 28 September 1951

The census records at the time shows that fewer than 200,000 arab muslims and Christians lived in what was to become Israel. Of these 100,000 elected to stay and become Israeli citizens, with the rest being evicted as enemy hostiles or leaving of their own free will. Want to check your Anglo-American report again Abdul as it is spelt out in there. Just as is the level of illegal arab muslim immigration that you skirted over. Your favourite term demographics proves that the arab muslims could never have increased by natural means in the manner they did. The best practise of the day in Palestine resulted in less than 100 live births per 1,000 pregnancies, and a survival rate of less than 10% so giving 10 births resulting in adulthood out of every 1000 conceptions. Then there was the mortality rate of 30% of the population, that clearly shows the arab muslims would struggle to keep an even number from 1919 till 1948. Your much loved report spells it out as the crops failed in Syria, Egypt, Saudi etc. the arab muslim farm workers migrated to Palestine to work on the farms there. The farm owners paid higher wages that the surrounding areas so many arab muslims stayed to work the farms. They were not indigenous to the area and migrated illegally during the period 1920 to 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events. It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.

(COMMENT)

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion. There was not. There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" (a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again) the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns. It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.

The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

(COMMENT)

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home. It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home. It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events. It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.

(COMMENT)

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion. There was not. There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" (a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again) the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns. It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.

The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

(COMMENT)

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home. It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home. It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

OMG! "George Galloway explaining to a Jew they have no right in Palestine."" That does it --- Israel is doomed! Heh Heh.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events. It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.

(COMMENT)

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion. There was not. There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" (a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again) the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns. It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.

The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

(COMMENT)

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home. It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home. It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

OMG! "George Galloway explaining to a Jew they have no right in Palestine."" That does it --- Israel is doomed! Heh Heh.

Indeed, Galloway kicks butt.

That is why he is so hated by the criminal class.

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events. It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.

(COMMENT)

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion. There was not. There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" (a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again) the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns. It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.

The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

(COMMENT)

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home. It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home. It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

OMG! "George Galloway explaining to a Jew they have no right in Palestine."" That does it --- Israel is doomed! Heh Heh.

Indeed, Galloway kicks butt.

That is why he is so hated by the criminal class.

Well, I dunno about the criminal class but I love the guy for all the laughs he gives us.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It does in certain parts of the world, mostly those run by Britain. You own property and you are liable to a tax on that property payable every year. The tax is now split into 7 bands and you pay according to the value of the property. Because Palestine was under British rule the same laws applies and so land and property was taxed on value, call it a tithe, so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid. This destroys the false claims by monti that the arab muslims owned the majority of Palestine as the tax records show the Jews paid the most in land taxes.

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.

Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.

It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region. When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel. There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name. They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
They had the right to call it what they wanted.
It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan. At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab. They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself? Palestine II?
With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel. Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called. They don't want to be Israeli? They leave. Most stayed and are content as Israelis. They don't want to leave or change names.
Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state. Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
Time you accept that.

You start with this statement.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.
​

That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.

The rest of your post follows false premise.

 

[Phoenall]

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

You are the dumbass as it clearly states arabs and other non-jews. Which means the absentee Turkish landlords who owned the land are counted. So table 1 is correct in its report 4.8% owned by Jews 0.8% owned by arabs.

Told you once I got the link I WOULD DESTROY YOUR CHERRY PICKING OF FACTS AND PRODUCE THE TRUTH

Table 1, says nothing about land ownership. Other non-Jews are the Samaritans, Greeks and Latins that are included in the population surveys, including Christian Church owned lands.

Nice try, moron.

From your link that shows who is the real moron


51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-

Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.


NOT OWNED just held as in leased or rented from Ottoman landlords. And the results are based on the taxes raised on the land.

No, it states clearly how many dunams were owned by the Jews and how many dunams were owned by the Arabs, the Christian churches, Samaritans, Greeks and Levantines (those of European descent) Jews owned less than 7%, the Arabs and other non-Jews more than 85%.

The data is included in the UN's Survey of Palestine published in 1946 and downloadable from the Berman Jewish Policy Archive of NYU and Wagner Universities. Home Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

The population table is in Volume 2. page 566.

View attachment 34600

AND THE ABSENTEE OTTOMAN LANDLORDS that owned most of the land. The arab muslims were cowards and greedy so did not register their land holdings because it meant paying taxes and being conscripted.


From your source showing that you are either a cretin who cant read or a liar.


51. Table 2, which has been compiled from the records of land
taxation, shows the area of land held by Arabs (and other non-

Jews) and by Jews. In table 2A the rural areas have been valued
at pre-war prices based on the categorization of land for fiscal
purposes carried out in 1935. These values, although based on
values actually ruling pre-war, are completely arbitrary and have
been designed to reflect the share of the two groups of the population
rather than the aggregate value of the land. The estimate
abstracts from the scarcity values which have in recent years
operated to drive up land values to figures which in earlier years
would have been considered fantastic.

Note the term held and not owned as Abdul claims

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

You are attempting to mix apples with oranges.

et al,

Land ownership had nothing to do with national sovereignty; it is merely one of many considerations.

The League of Nations did not give the land to the Jewish Agency. Israel was created under the self-determination; pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" outlined by the UN.

v/r
R

No, but clearly demonstrates that the Jews acquired land from the Christians and Muslims who owned 85% of it by a war of conquest.

(COMMENT)

Land acquisition is a civil law real-estate term. it has noting to do with the "right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order;" or the establishment of a self-governing institution under the guidance of the international body of common law. [(1) territory; (2) population; (3) government.]

The act of Aggression was the unsuccessful use of armed force by a local regional Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State (the newly created State of Israel); which was demonstrated in 1948 when the combined armies of the local regional Arab States attempted to undermine the Jewish implementation of UN guided Israeli Independence effort --- by military force (a coordinated attack by the local regional Arab States on the newly created State of Israel). Remembering of course that the Arab States had no authority (legally, morally or otherwise) to attempt such a military effort. And remembering that it is the duty of local regional Arab States not to use armed force to deprive people (the UN recognized Jewish Agency) of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity, sanctioned by the greater body of common law makers (the UN General Assembly).

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a re-eruption of the Civil War for Independence that started in 1947 when the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was passed and included the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish State. That is NOT the same thing as the acquisition of territory through the use of military force or by military conquest.

Most Respectfully,
R

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans. The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

Nothing to do with the attacks on the Jews by the arab muslims then. Like the Hebron massacre or the arab nationalists incitement of civil war.

Now how about a LINK detailing that the area was illegally assigned to the Europeans.

This should be good as CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW completely blows his claims out of the water.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

This is a false interpretation taken outside the timeline of real events. It is written in the language of the pro-Palestinian opposed to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The act of aggression was the implementation of Plan Dalet by the Jew invader designed to expel the Christians and Muslims that remained in the area illegally assigned to the Europeans.

(COMMENT)

Plan "D", however you interpret the objectives to be, was a plan to be implemented as a support mechanism for the War of Independence; defensive in nature for rear-area protection --- NOT offensive.

The quotation implies that there was an invasion. There was not. There was always an intent by the Allied Powers that immigration was to support marshaling Jewish resources willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. That was a decision in the hands of the Allied Powers and not the enemy population indigenous to the territroy surrendered.

The quotation implies that there was an "ethnic cleansing component," a propaganda position to illicit sympathy and support for a hostile Arab Population; suggesting it was some sort of blueprint for the Jewish – to terrorize and "force at gun point" (a very common propaganda theme repeated over and over again) the xenophobic natives to evacuate their villages and towns. It is the counter argument to the protection against clusters and launches for infiltration into the territory of the new Jewish State.

The phrase --- "area illegally assigned to the Europeans" --- is to emphasize the xenophobic attitude that runs tandem to the political opposition for the Partition Plan.

The Jews had no right to deprive the Christians and Muslims living in the Jew area of the partition of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Arab states had every right to attempt to stop the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims and to prevent the Europeans from acquiring territory through conquest.

(COMMENT)

It again runs towards drumming up sympathy to counter the idea that a century ago, the political-military dynamics and politics prohibited the Allied Powers from establishing a policy to protect the cultural heritage and integrity of the Jewish People against the dominance of the overwhelming hostile majority of the Arab and Islamic threat by establishing a Jewish National Home. It is a modern attempt to apply contemporary human rights theory of the new century against decisions of the past --- to promote hatred and contempt against the efforts in preserving and protecting the civil, political and religious rights of a people in need of a safe haven and national home. It further suggests the salacious, fictitious and imaginary idea that the Jewish People harbor some animosity or bitterness towards those of the Christians and Muslims faiths in order to rally radical religious opposition towards the Jewish community.

Most Respectfully,
R

George Galloway explaining to a Jew that they have no right in Palestine

The islamonazi that even the other islamonazi's hate. He LIES all the time and will find himself facing a lengthy prison sentence in due course

 

[Phoenall]

Oh Phoney, why do you do it to yourself all the time...

"so land and property was taxed on value"

Does not equate to...

"so the more land you owned the higher the tax you paid"

Can you see the difference?

Property is taxed on LAND VALUE not LAND OWNED!

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.

Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.

It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region. When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel. There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name. They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
They had the right to call it what they wanted.
It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan. At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab. They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself? Palestine II?
With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel. Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called. They don't want to be Israeli? They leave. Most stayed and are content as Israelis. They don't want to leave or change names.
Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state. Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
Time you accept that.

You start with this statement.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.
​

That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.

The rest of your post follows false premise.

Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?

And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship

 

[P F Tinmore]

So if I owned 100 acres and ali owned 10 acres I would pay the same tax as he would, or would I pay ten times more tax than him. Of course 100 acres is valued higher than 10 acres.

Do you understand this now, if the Jews owned 4.8% of the land and the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land then the Jews would pay more tax. Which is what table 2 shows and is explained in the sectioned I posted that monti left out because it destroys his stance. Just as removing table 1 destroys his claims because it gives the true land ownership.

You are such an idiot it states plainly how much land each group owned. A dunum is about 1,000 square meters

26,670,455 Dunums Arabs
1,514,247 Dunums Jews

That is the true land ownership you cretin.

Arabs owned more than 85% of the land in 1946, and Jews owned less than 7% of the land in 1946. Get it through your thick skull.

The the other table has nothing to do with land ownership.

Of course this discussion is meaningless. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens without regard to private property ownership. Somebody who rents a house in New Jersey has the same rights as a farm owner in Kentucky.

Jews owned land in Palestine but it was still Palestinian land. Jews own land in the US but it is still US land. It does not belong to any other country.

It is the people who have sovereignty. The citizens in a defined territory are the ones with the right to sovereignty. Governments or states only have sovereignty by extension of the will of the people.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region. When the mandate ended the government of Eretz Israel choose to name their state Israel. There was no state of palestine so why should they have kept the name. They wanted their jewish state to reflect their history and ties to the land.
They had the right to call it what they wanted.
It was a distinction from the state offered and refused by the UN partition plan. At the time most palestinian arabs/muslims identified themselves as southern syrians, jordanian or just as arab. They were a mix of tribes and people and at the time the mandate ended close to half were immigrants that came seeking well paying work what had no real ties to the land or country.
If Israel had kept the name of palestine, what should the rest of the other land have called itself? Palestine II?
With the creation of Israel, the "land" was no longer palestine but now Israel.
Sovereignty and rights come from statehood which the palestinians never had or left because they did not want to accept either Israel or partition.
Israel could have called itself Mecca or Rome or Jewland or XYZland but it choose Israel. Palestinian refugees, gaza, WB , wherever don't have the right to tell Israel what it should be called. They don't want to be Israeli? They leave. Most stayed and are content as Israelis. They don't want to leave or change names.
Israel was identified by the mandate as a jewish homeland and Israel identifies as a jewish state. Israel was a logical choice for a name and the land is Israeli land and the people are Israeli.
Time you accept that.

You start with this statement.

"Palestine" is just a name of the mandate region.
​

That is not true. Palestine was a country (Palestine was called a country ten times in the mandate charter) that was defined by international borders. It had citizens as per international law, the Treaty of Lausanna, and the Palestine citizenship order of 1925.

The rest of your post follows false premise.

Nope as the treaties state the mandate of Palestine and never the nation of Palestine, take another close look tinny ?

And the treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine, while the Palestine citizenship order endows palestinians with British palestinian citizenship

Where does it say that?