Gaza

[Morris]

A mandate is not ownership... just so you know.. the Brits did not have the authority to give the jews any land in Palestine.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. The British had the complete authority to parcel that land as it wished because the previous owners (the Ottoman Empire) ceded it automatically with its dissolution in losing World War I.

And again, you make it sound like the entire region was already developed and settled by Arabs. The hundreds of thousands of Jews that migrated into the Mandate from 1918-1948 didn't displace a single Palestinian. And the vacant land that the Jews settled could become Israel because Jews were a majority on those lands. The British and the United Nations merely recognized that fact.

i don't know what they taught you at school, but when more than 300 civillians are killed, it is a massacre.

The number is anywhere between 90-150. And a massacre is not defined by the death count but by how the deaths occurred. If a Canadian army laid siege to Manhattan Island and 20 million starved because American forces wouldn't surrender, that would not be a massacre.

Besides, the number of civilian casualties in Deir Yassin was not abnormal when one takes into account the fact that house to house fighting went on in the village for days.

Also, it would have been unusual for the Israeli unit to plan a massacre and then give Deir Yassin's civilians a warning to get out of the village before it was attacked, which is exactly what they did.

You can't say "they left willingly" and left the land vacant.

Israel didn't even control Gaza before, during or after the 1948 war. And when Israel did come into control of Gaza during the 1967 war, there was no large scale movement of Palestinians out of the strip. The Gaza Strip remains one of the most densely populated pieces of land on the planet with over 1 million Palestinians.

Palestinians didn't flee the Gaza Strip en masse during the war only to have Jewish settlers strut into their houses or something. After the war, Jewish settlers voluntarily entered Gaza and settled on vacant land.

Some sources originally reported a death toll of around 254, but that number has recently been shown to be a contemporary exaggeration that was disseminated for a variety of political reasons.

The exaggerated death toll and stories were disseminated by both the Israeli and Arab militias in the immediate aftermath of the battle. The Israelis wanted to scare Palestinian civilians into fleeing. The Arabs hoped the propaganda would embitter and embolden more Palestinians to join the fight.

Yet the attack was carried out by underground paramilitary dissidents who were not acting on behalf of the Haganah.

Regardless of how we describe the Israeli militia that attacked Deir Yassin, the attack occurred because Arab militias were using Deir Yassin to attack Israeli targets.

 

[TecK NeeX]

the attack occurred because Arab militias were using Deir Yassin to attack Israeli targets.

I've noticed that this is your responce to every single freakin Israeli atrocity against the palestinians. It's gettin really fucking rediculous

Nuke Gaza and you'll be running around trying to justify the attack by claiming gaza was being used to attack israeli targets

 

[Khaled]

Actually, that's exactly what it means. The British had the complete authority to parcel that land as it wished because the previous owners (the Ottoman Empire) ceded it automatically with its dissolution in losing World War I.

a mandate by definition is temporary. So technically it can never stand for ownership.

The first group or Class A mandates were areas fomerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire deemed to "...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory..." The Class A mandates assigned to France were Syria and Lebanon; Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan were assigned to Britain. By 1949 all of these mandates had been replaced by sovereign governments.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/League_of_Nations_Mandate

the clauses of the british mandate of Palestine are the most ridiculous and hypocritical i have ever seen, as opposed to Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq where the mandate was a step to ultimately give these country full sovereinghty. Instead, the Brits chose to create a jewish state

the concept that: the Allied forces won the war so they can dispose of the lands conquered the way they please is such a stupid argument...
this totally gives the palestinian total legitimacy since they believe that they could "conquer" palestine and will then legitimatly own it.
it also legitimises any war anywhere any time

 

[Zero Cool]

The British had the complete authority to parcel that land as it wished because the previous owners (the Ottoman Empire) ceded it automatically with its dissolution in losing World War I.

The British had a LON mandate over the region, nothing more. By definition the mandate's were NOT what the British turned them into, namely means for parceling out land as they saw fit. Any power the British had in the sphere was the result of a war on another continent and fought for wholly different objectives. Imperialism clearly raises it's head here, as elsewhere. The British had one goal and one only, secure their influence. How can a nation which has no reasonable right over a land thousands of miles from it's borders, divide it as they see fit? What you're implying is the same as saying today it would be perfectly acceptable for the U.S. to divide Iraq into a conglomerate of different states.

The people of the region have a right to their own free lands (as was apparently secured by the Allied victory in WWI ), no-one else. The British decisions while in control of Palestine and the resulting declarations IMO have little or no validity.

And again, you make it sound like the entire region was already developed and settled by Arabs. The hundreds of thousands of Jews that migrated into the Mandate from 1918-1948 didn't displace a single Palestinian. And the vacant land that the Jews settled could become Israel because Jews were a majority on those lands. The British and the United Nations merely recognized that fact.

While some of what you say is certainly correct, you're oversimplfying it to a great degree. It's not like Jews immigrated to a swath of desert which was unihabited. There were certainly native Arabs displaced and land illegaly settled.

The Jews certainly have a right to a state but the way in which it was done was logically bound to lead to violence. Both sides have a right, determining the extent of that right, appears to be the problem.

 

[Morris]

I've noticed that this is your responce to every single freakin Israeli atrocity against the palestinians. It's gettin really fucking rediculous

Deir Yassin was not an atrocity. Deir Yassin was a pitched battle fought in the middle of a war. When Israel raids the Gaza to arrest militants or stop attacks, it is not an "atrocity." It's self defense, and it's the state's job to provide that self defense to its citizens instead of letting rockets and suicide bombers rain down on them.

It's not like Jews immigrated to a swath of desert which was unihabited. There were certainly native Arabs displaced and land illegaly settled.

I have no idea where you got this notion. Between 1918-1948, Jews that migrated to the Mandate had to buy the land from the provincial (British) authorities. Palestinians weren't being kicked off land to pave the way for Jews. And under the Balfour Declaration, every Jew that migrated to the Mandate did so legally, so I'm not sure how you're defining illegal settlements.

How can a nation which has no reasonable right over a land thousands of miles from it's borders, divide it as they see fit?

Because without that nation (Britain), nobody controlled the land due to the fact that the previous governing/sovereign nation (the Ottoman Empire) completely ceased to exist. It's not as those the people living in the region ever had self sovereignty beforehand; they simply went from living under Ottoman sovereignty to residing in a Mandate that the League of Nations instructed Britain to control and divide.

Upon immediately taking control of the Mandate, the Balfour Declaration stipulated that a Jewish state of Israel would be affirmed within that Mandate: the British eventually divided Israel out of 13% of the Mandate, and Israel had a 55% Jewish majority.

a mandate by definition is temporary. So technically it can never stand for ownership.

The British Mandate was temporary (30 years).

 

[Khaled]

I'm not sure how you're defining illegal settlements.

simple

The British Mandate was temporary (30 years).

Between 1918-1948, Jews that migrated to the Mandate had to buy the land from the provincial (British) authorities.

there you go

 

[Morris]

^ So it's illegal for members of a certain religion to buy land from the government?

The Palestinian Arabs living in the Mandate also had to buy land from a provincial government. What does it matter if that provincial government was Turkish or British?

I just can't comprehend how someone can call it illegal for certain people to buy vacant land.

 

[devils_advok8]

I have no idea where you got this notion. Between 1918-1948, Jews that migrated to the Mandate had to buy the land from the provincial (British) authorities. Palestinians weren't being kicked off land to pave the way for Jews. And under the Balfour Declaration, every Jew that migrated to the Mandate did so legally, so I'm not sure how you're defining illegal settlements.



Because without that nation (Britain), nobody controlled the land due to the fact that the previous governing/sovereign nation (the Ottoman Empire) completely ceased to exist. It's not as those the people living in the region ever had self sovereignty beforehand; they simply went from living under Ottoman sovereignty to residing in a Mandate that the League of Nations instructed Britain to control and divide.

Upon immediately taking control of the Mandate, the Balfour Declaration stipulated that a Jewish state of Israel would be affirmed within that Mandate: the British eventually divided Israel out of 13% of the Mandate, and Israel had a 55% Jewish majority.



The British Mandate was temporary (30 years).

The Jews only managed to aquire 6.6% of the land, most of it from Arab citizens registered as "absentee landowners" who had no clue what was going on.
I don't understand how you're making it sound legal.It would've meant more if they actually grabbed the whole land by force instead of managing to get hold of 6.6% "legally" and taking over the rest illegally.
I credited it with you more intelligence.I never expected you to use a peace of paper as a means to justify all the wrong doings that had taken place.

 

[Baukem]

the returning jews were being kept out by the british right before, during and after the war... so fukk the brittish too lol

 

[Zero Cool]

Because without that nation (Britain), nobody controlled the land due to the fact that the previous governing/sovereign nation (the Ottoman Empire) completely ceased to exist. It's not as those the people living in the region ever had self sovereignty beforehand

That dosen't matter. America never had self-soverignty before 1783, Slovakia didn't have self-sovereignty until 1993. Both are now accepted as free nations. A nation by it's definiton is made up of people who share a similar cultural, ethnic and historical background. The Palestinians just like the Americans, British or Germans share this background. Mandates were temporary power instruments issued until the people could be trusted to rule themselves. The British, as usual, took this one step further and started parceling out land to people who had no prior relationship to the land they took.

Would it be acceptable in your view, if Canada gained a mandate over the U.S. and decided to set up a nation specifically for Black Americans?

 

[Morris]

^ I don't think you're putting your argument in context with the Israeli/Palestinian situation by using theoreticals.

The British, as usual, took this one step further and started parceling out land to people who had no prior relationship to the land they took.

First of all, the suggestion that Jews had no "prior relationship" to the Mandate of Palestine is patently absurd for many reasons: Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem are the most obvious reasons Jews had a relationship to that land.

And even if that was true, what kind of reason is that for barring immigration to the region? European immigrants had no prior relationship to America: why shouldn't they have been barred?

A nation by it's definiton is made up of people who share a similar cultural, ethnic and historical background. The Palestinians just like the Americans, British or Germans share this background.

I'm not really sure where this fits into the argument. The British did create a state of Palestine after all.

And even the notion of a Palestinian ethnicity, as opposed to a Jordanian ethnicity, is highly debatable. The term Palestinian didn't even get heavy use until the 1960s. The Ottomans had controlled that region for centuries without there ever being a sovereign state of Palestine. I'm not an expert, so I don't know what ethnic differences there were between Arabs living in what became Transjordan and Arabs living in what became Palestine. But I don't think this applies to any of the arguments anyway.

Mandates were temporary power instruments issued until the people could be trusted to rule themselves.

Here is the actual wording from the League of Nations regarding the Mandate.

# Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

# Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty [the Balfour Declaration], and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

# Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Britain didn't overstep their bounds.

Regardless, perhaps you think it's wrong that Jews were allowed to recreate a state of Israel within the Mandate. That could be argued until the end of time.

However, in no way, shape or form was it illegal for Jews to migrate there and buy vacant land. And Palestinians were not displaced or moved off the land that the Jews bought. Whether you agree with the international laws or not, there was not an illegal Jewish settlement in the Mandate.

 

[Zero Cool]

First of all, the suggestion that Jews had no "prior relationship" to the Mandate of Palestine is patently absurd for many reasons: Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem are the most obvious reasons Jews had a relationship to that land.

Jews indeed had a relationship to the land, some 2000 years ago. What you're insinuating is the same as saying the Celts have a right to re-settle Britain after it was invaded by the Anglo-Saxons or the Irish settle Scotland. Patently absurd.

And even if that was true, what kind of reason is that for barring immigration to the region? European immigrants had no prior relationship to America: why shouldn't they have been barred?

America was known as a land of immigration, Palestine is not. America had large swathes of land which was inteded to be settled if the country was to expand. This is certainly not analogous to Palestine. Besides, almost every European country now places quotas on the number of immigrants they take in each year.

And even the notion of a Palestinian ethnicity, as opposed to a Jordanian ethnicity, is highly debatable. The term Palestinian didn't even get heavy use until the 1960s. The Ottomans had controlled that region for centuries without there ever being a sovereign state of Palestine. I'm not an expert, so I don't know what ethnic differences there were between Arabs living in what became Transjordan and Arabs living in what became Palestine. But I don't think this applies to any of the arguments anyway.

What's the difference between a Scot and an Irishman, an Austrian and a German? Little if anything. I don't really see what it has to do with the debate. Palestinians are one group of people who inhabited the land, Jews are a conglomerate of others.

However, in no way, shape or form was it illegal for Jews to migrate there and buy vacant land. And Palestinians were not displaced or moved off the land that the Jews bought. Whether you agree with the international laws or not, there was not an illegal Jewish settlement in the Mandate.

Buying vacant land? Sure. But please, don't attempt to insult anyone's intelligence by saying that Jews just settled a swathe of unimportant desert like the Yankees did Gold Rush California.

 

[Morris]

Jews indeed had a relationship to the land, some 2000 years ago. What you're insinuating is the same as saying the Celts have a right to re-settle Britain after it was invaded by the Anglo-Saxons or the Irish settle Scotland. Patently absurd.

I believe the religious ties to the land, such as all their holy sites, still gave Jews a strong spiritual tie to the region within the Mandate. I don't know enough about the Celts to comment, but I'm sure that the Celts are not barred from settling in Britain, and I'm sure Irish are allowed to buy vacant land in Scotland.

America was known as a land of immigration, Palestine is not. America had large swathes of land which was inteded to be settled if the country was to expand. This is certainly not analogous to Palestine.

Frankly, I don't think immigration should be barred anywhere or to anyone. And the Mandate of Palestine did have large swathes of vacant land, like the Negev Desert. 600,000 or so Jews migrated there in 30 years and were a majority in 13% of the lands. I think that's an indicator that there were large swathes of vacant land.

Buying vacant land? Sure. But please, don't attempt to insult anyone's intelligence by saying that Jews just settled a swathe of unimportant desert like the Yankees did Gold Rush California.

Under every tenant of the law, Jews could settle land anywhere in the Mandate. In the 1930s they were barred from settling in Jordan and there was a quota placed on Jewish immigration to the Mandate so that they could only be 33% of the Mandate's population.

It doesn't matter what kind of land it was, although given your comment it is ironic that almost half of the original state of Israel was the Negev Desert.

You can argue whether or not it was right for the Allied Powers to assume control of that region. In fact, that would make for an interesting argument. But I don't think you can argue that Jews illegally settled land from 1918-1948 or displaced Palestinians in doing so.

 

[devils_advok8]

And even the notion of a Palestinian ethnicity, as opposed to a Jordanian ethnicity, is highly debatable. The term Palestinian didn't even get heavy use until the 1960s. The Ottomans had controlled that region for centuries without there ever being a sovereign state of Palestine. I'm not an expert, so I don't know what ethnic differences there were between Arabs living in what became Transjordan and Arabs living in what became Palestine. But I don't think this applies to any of the arguments anyway.

But wasnt it all just called Syria?Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon?Native Jordanians are still a minority even now, and most of the Western Jordanians are of Palestinian origin.There's no difference between Jordanians and Palestinians (culturally, genetically, etc) except for the Bediouns (both sides, Palestinian Bediouns and Jordanian Bediouns).Most Jordanians can tie themselves to a Palestinian ancestry.Bedioun Jordanians make less than 10%.I still don't understand how you used it as an example.Before 1948, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese were referred to as Shamis.They're still referred to as Shamis in countries like Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Yemen, etc.Some Maronite Lebanese chose to identify themselves as Phoenicians, but that's to abondon their Arabic origin.The term Palestinians was heavily used to refer to the displaced people who lived in the now then Palestine by the media.A Palestinian passport was only issued after Oslo, I believe.So when you're living in diaspora, got another nationality and don't carry your Palestinian passport, you were still referred to as a Palestinian, but that's only to link you to the prior 1948 and 1967 events.
The Ottomans didnt declare Palestine as a soverign state for their own personal reasons.The Levant was called Syria, or Greater Syria, Bilad al Sham, call it whatever you want, for centuries.Same with Saudi Arabia, it was called Bilad Al Hijaz till it gained it's independence in the 20th century, and take from here and add there, in the end it wasn't it's original bounderies and other countries were formed with modern names that were never mentioned in history.You need more than man drawn boards and given names to take away someone's identity.

 

[devils_advok8]

I believe the religious ties to the land, such as all their holy sites, still gave Jews a strong spiritual tie to the region within the Mandate. I don't know enough about the Celts to comment, but I'm sure that the Celts are not barred from settling in Britain, and I'm sure Irish are allowed to buy vacant land in Scotland.

What's that?The Wailing wall?In 1948, out of 270 ruins in Jerusalem, around 200 of those belonged to Muslims.The Jews had their temple there, it got destroyed, end of story.The Christians' still got one of their two holiest churches in Jerusalem, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre.They got more right to Jerusalem than the Jews in my eyes.

Frankly, I don't think immigration should be barred anywhere or to anyone. And the Mandate of Palestine did have large swathes of vacant land, like the Negev Desert. 600,000 or so Jews migrated there in 30 years and were a majority in 13% of the lands. I think that's an indicator that there were large swathes of vacant land.

Yeah, but wasnt the Negev desert like 2/3 of Palestine?If 600, 000 Jews migrated to the Negev desert, then 400 000 of them left to the other 1/3 after the state of Israel was established, as only 200, 000 live in the Negev desert right now.
You're right, immigration should'nt be barred to anyone.I want to migrate to Israel.Wonder what my chances are.
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Zionist_and_Palestinian_landownership.htm

 

[Khaled]

^ So it's illegal for members of a certain religion to buy land from the government?

who the hell is saying that??

hey, you wanna buy land in Palestine, you buy it from the owners, which are not the british (mandate or no mandate)

you keep referring to the UN as the highest standards to whether somehting s legitimate or not...
let me ask you something... if the UN suddenly says that it doesn't recognize Israel, Do you think all Israelis living there will just decide to leave just because the UN said so????

 

[Baukem]

What's that?The Wailing wall?In 1948, out of 270 ruins in Jerusalem, around 200 of those belonged to Muslims.The Jews had their temple there, it got destroyed, end of story.The Christians' still got one of their two holiest churches in Jerusalem, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre.They got more right to Jerusalem than the Jews in my eyes.

thats why the christians say the jews have the most right to the land...

Yeah, but wasnt the Negev desert like 2/3 of Palestine?If 600, 000 Jews migrated to the Negev desert, then 400 000 of them left to the other 1/3 after the state of Israel was established, as only 200, 000 live in the Negev desert right now.
You're right, immigration should'nt be barred to anyone.I want to migrate to Israel.Wonder what my chances are.
http://this link is propaganda

ur chances u can settle there are 100 % , if u respect the democractic values for which it stands... but obviously you don't. newsflash: there are palestinians and arabs living in peace inside israel... they choose to respect the laws and are threaten equally... though its very hard for a jew to live in any arab country.. except maybe maroc or turkey (but even there synagoges are being destroyed and jews). then again, turkish ppl arent arab.

hey, you wanna buy land in Palestine, you buy it from the owners, which are not the british (mandate or no mandate)

yea the jews got ripped off... they had to pay the british for their own land... and a lot of jews were being held out by the same brittish ppl cuz they didnt want to upset the arabs... which were being cruel and didnt want MORE jews already... since there were already so much who were always living there.

 

[devils_advok8]

You don't know shit.

 

[Morris]

What's that?The Wailing wall?In 1948, out of 270 ruins in Jerusalem, around 200 of those belonged to Muslims.The Jews had their temple there, it got destroyed, end of story.

The holiest sites in the religion still reside in Jerusalem. Using that type of logic, why would an American born Muslim feel any attachment to Mecca?

The Christians' still got one of their two holiest churches in Jerusalem, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre.They got more right to Jerusalem than the Jews in my eyes.

What does "more right" have to do with this? Under Israeli control, every religion is allowed in the city anyway. The Mandate called for international control of the city, but that was rendered moot by the 1948 invasion of the region by Arab militias.

Yeah, but wasnt the Negev desert like 2/3 of Palestine?If 600, 000 Jews migrated to the Negev desert, then 400 000 of them left to the other 1/3 after the state of Israel was established, as only 200, 000 live in the Negev desert right now.

Sorry for my vague wording, which does make it look like I said 600,000 went to the Negev Desert. I meant 600,000 went to the lands that encompassed the entire state.

Here's the map of the Partition Plan. If my memory serves me correctly, almost the entire Negev Desert is in Israel in that map.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fac...ndownership.htm

The chart's a little vague, in that I can't tell if it represents the % of landowners or the % of land.

I'm assuming it's the latter. If Arabs living there for generations had taken up 80% of the region around Jaffa, that doesn't mean there were more of them on that 80% than there were migrating Jews in the other 20%. Under a representative government, Jews would still form a majority in that region, thus making a Jewish state of Israel possible.

The amount of land owned doesn't matter in comparison to the number of people on the land when we're talking about governing. And the displacement of Palestinians from that land was caused by an invasion of the region by Arab militias, not by Jewish settlement.

 

[Morris]

hey, you wanna buy land in Palestine, you buy it from the owners, which are not the british (mandate or no mandate)

If the land is owned by the government, and the Ottomans suddenly no longer govern there, then the people governing the province are the owners of the land.

Again, it's more than fair to argue whether or not the British or the League of Nations should have assumed sovereignty over the Mandate. In fact, it would make for probably a pretty good debate with points that could be made by both sides.

But once it did happen, it meant they were the provincial government and thus controlled distribution of the land.

you keep referring to the UN as the highest standards to whether somehting s legitimate or not...

The United Nations was and is the main stipulator of international law. All I've said in this thread is that it was completely legal for Jews to settle there.

I've never said that international law is always automatically right or fair or maintains absolute morality. But you can't call the Jewish settlement of the Mandate or the establishment of Israel "illegal."

if the UN suddenly says that it doesn't recognize Israel, Do you think all Israelis living there will just decide to leave just because the UN said so????

The United Nations would be contradicting the Balfour Declaration, the McDonald-White Papers and its own Partition Plan. They already affirmed Israel's sovereignty.