aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
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.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.
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.
Some of the poster seem to be confused. In a land that during the Roman occupation supported millions with more primitive methods was under populated. The beginning of the mandate there was around 500,000 people, of all types. They had not been generating enough tax money to fund the services for the region. Many that could have registered land did not want to so they could avoid taxes and military service. The region need an influx of population that was willing to develop the economy. Both Ottoman and arabs invited the jews to return to their historic homeland with the intent of building a jewish homeland. The LoN and Mandate also understood that the goal was to eventually create a jewish homeland.
First the arabs in the mandate were given Jordan as an arab/palestinian state. Around 75% of the population are palestinian today. When that did not satisfy those being incited by the mufti and blood libels there was a UN offer of partition creating a state for the palestinians, but that was refused and upon declaration of an Israeli state that country was attacked from all sides by overwhelming numbers.
I posted an article about the legal and illegal immigration into the mandate, but it must have gone over the heads of some posters, or they did not even bother to use the link to the site and read the article.
There was room for both nations but everytime the palestinians get close to an agreement they walk away or blow the deal with violence. There are several censuses other than Monti's #566 that go in to more detail and explain the reasons, but they are all imprecise. It is hard to do an accurate count of people that do not want to be counted or registered for what ever legal reasons or because of fluid movement within the region.
If you take all the information into account and come up with average population, immigration, land ownership, sale, production and taxation you get a more accurate view of the region. Research from just one source or from propaganda sites should be take with a large spoon of salt. Instead it should be injunction with all the evidence from a range of sources.
Monti's page #566 is not the definitive source of information, but he keeps repeating using it like it is absolute fact. If examined land for land type between the various groups it makes no sense that jews owning so little of the land should be paying 60% or more of the taxes. Nor do they coincide with other estimates before during and after that time. If there was an honest attempt n producing the figures then there is a good chance there was a typo in the figures.
Anyway you look at it, Monti's #566 should only be considered a one of many attempts at a land ownership, population, taxation, etc. view of what the region really looked like at the time. Personally I reject his miss use and representation of the factuality of his grail documents. In balance they are not supported nor is the methodology of the information included.
