Pro-Palestinian supporters at Columbia University confront Jews ‘to push them out of camp’

[Hans Blaster]

But they could be. The contract is between the state and the people. You are talking what is typical not what must be.

No. Land transfer contracts are between private parties. When I bought my house it was a private contract between me and the prior owner. The government provided the legal framework and insisted upon registration, but I entered into no contract with any government to own my land.

With Israel 70% of the land was government land held by the British mandate. Those lands reverted to Isreali control after the British left.

70% government lands seems rather high for a place that has been settled for 12000 years. Is that included "wilderness" no one lives in? Perhaps, if we can, we can limit this to houses, villages, cities, and cultivated lands.

Jews owned 9% and the Arabs owned about 18% of the rest.

Did both groups get to keep their land and buildings after the two changes of government? (British mandate, state of Israel)

Most of whom left the country after the Arabs attacked Israel even before Israel announced their independence.

Most of whom?

 

[rjs330]

Then the Israelis have been at war with the Gazan people for ages.

The Arabs have been attacking the Isrealis there even before their declaration of independence. The mere thought of a Jewish state sent them into homicidal frenzy.

 

[rjs330]

No.

I've owned land in different quantities nearly my whole entire life. The contract is between people but that contract is registered by the government. If you think for a moment rhat you actually own the land and the government can't take it away, you are mistaken. If America was taken over by China they could just tell us all none of the land belongs to any of us. No matter who we contracted with.

Did both groups get to keep their land and buildings after the two changes of government? (British mandate, state of Israel)

I dont believe everyone did. There were a LOT of Arabs that left the area even before Israel declared their independence. And many others that left afterward. If your claim is that Israel canceled all of the Arabs property ownership, then you have just proven my point. Your ownership is strictly governed by the laws of the land.

Most of whom?

The Arab land owners.

 

[BCP1928]

The Arabs have been attacking the Isrealis there even before their declaration of independence. The mere thought of a Jewish state sent them into homicidal frenzy.

Yes, they didn't want a Western-style secular state plopped down on top of the British mandate and populated with European immigrants. They didn't even want the mandate and were fighting the British about it already.

 

[BCP1928]

I've owned land in different quantities nearly my whole entire life. The contract is between people but that contract is registered by the government. If you think for a moment rhat you actually own the land and the government can't take it away, you are mistaken. If America was taken over by China they could just tell us all none of the land belongs to any of us. No matter who we contracted with.

I dont believe everyone did. There were a LOT of Arabs that left the area even before Israel declared their independence. And many others that left afterward. If your claim is that Israel canceled all of the Arabs property ownership, then you have just proven my point. Your ownership is strictly governed by the laws of the land.

The Arab land owners.

They weren't abandoning their title--they fled because there was a war going on.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, they didn't want a Western-style secular state plopped down on top of the British mandate and populated with European immigrants. They didn't even want the mandate and were fighting the British about it already.

Who cares. The land didn't belong to them. They weren't a nation. It was just land that was controlled by various nations down through history. Including the Jewish nation, Rome, The Ottoman and Britain. Arabs in the area only "owned" 18% of the land. Israel is the only one that wanted a nation there. And it it wasnt up to the Arabs. It wasnt theirs. It was Britain's and the Ottomans before them.

 

[rjs330]

They weren't abandoning their title--they fled because there was a war going on.

A war they started.

 

[BCP1928]

A war they started.

The rest of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into countries by the British and French and given independence and self-determination. Why not Palestine?

 

[BCP1928]

Who cares. The land didn't belong to them. They weren't a nation. It was just land that was controlled by various nations down through history. Including the Jewish nation, Rome, The Ottoman and Britain. Arabs in the area only "owned" 18% of the land. Israel is the only one that wanted a nation there.

The Palestians wanted one.

And it it wasnt up to the Arabs. It wasnt theirs. It was Britain's and the Ottomans before them.

 

[rjs330]

The rest of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into countries by the British and French and given independence and self-determination. Why not Palestine?

It was offered to them. More than once. And they refused every time and called for the eradication of the Jews and then would attack them.

 

[rjs330]

The Palestians wanted one.

Their actions proved they didn't. They turned it down every time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Arabs have been attacking the Isrealis there even before their declaration of independence. The mere thought of a Jewish state sent them into homicidal frenzy.

Yep, you're deflecting left and right as your own lines of questioning lead to pitfalls.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've owned land in different quantities nearly my whole entire life. The contract is between people but that contract is registered by the government. If you think for a moment rhat you actually own the land and the government can't take it away, you are mistaken. If America was taken over by China they could just tell us all none of the land belongs to any of us. No matter who we contracted with.

Your understanding of contracts is quite broken. (And the law, but that does not surprise me in the slightest.)

I dont believe everyone did. There were a LOT of Arabs that left the area even before Israel declared their independence. And many others that left afterward. If your claim is that Israel canceled all of the Arabs property ownership, then you have just proven my point. Your ownership is strictly governed by the laws of the land.

The Arab land owners.

Ran away? I think we are going to need link.

 

[JosephZ]

It was offered to them. More than once. And they refused every time

None of those offers gave the Palestinians a fully independent, sovereign state.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I've owned land in different quantities nearly my whole entire life. The contract is between people but that contract is registered by the government. If you think for a moment rhat you actually own the land and the government can't take it away, you are mistaken.

They can't. Not without paying you fair market value for it, at least. And if they try to take it without paying you (or while paying what you think is not a fair valuation), you can sue to stop the action because there is a legal framework backing the whole thing up. Eminent domain is a power granted to the government by law, but that law also lays out how eminent domain claims must proceed, and one of those requirements is that the owner be compensated fairly.

If America was taken over by China they could just tell us all none of the land belongs to any of us. No matter who we contracted with.

They could - but it would still be theft. Being able to back up your theft with force does not make it right or legal. There might be cases where you have no real option but to (temporarily) accept the theft, as you lack power to oppose it, but your claim on the property remains as long as you have record of it.

If, for example, someone carjacks you at gunpoint, surrendering your car to them in the moment does not renounce your claim of ownership on that vehicle. You can go to the police and show proof of ownership, and they will try to recover your property (and deal with the criminal responsible).

 

[rjs330]

They can't. Not without paying you fair market value for it, at least. And if they try to take it without paying you (or while paying what you think is not a fair valuation), you can sue to stop the action because there is a legal framework backing the whole thing up. Eminent domain is a power granted to the government by law, but that law also lays out how eminent domain claims must proceed, and one of those requirements is that the owner be compensated fairly.

Exactly. What law? The laws of our country. If we lost our country to another, our laws would no longer be valid and that country could end our laws.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

They could - but it would still be theft. Being able to back up your theft with force does not make it right or legal.

If, for example, someone carjacks you at gunpoint, surrendering your car to them in the moment does not renounce your claim of ownership on that vehicle. You can go to the police and show proof of ownership, and they will try to recover your property (and deal with the criminal responsible).

You might consider it theft, but the government wouldn't. It certainly would make it perfectly legal because the government determines what is legal or not. You know rher are people that consider taxes as theft. But the law says its not. Why? Because laws were passed by the government. Some consider the death penalty murder. But uts not because the government has determined it is not.

You carjack example proves my point. The government has made that determination.

 

[rjs330]

None of those offers gave the Palestinians a fully independent, sovereign state.

Yes they did.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Exactly. What law? The laws of our country. If we lost our country to another, our laws would no longer be valid and that country could end our laws.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

You might consider it theft, but the government wouldn't. It certainly would make it perfectly legal because the government determines what is legal or not. You know rher are people that consider taxes as theft. But the law says its not. Why? Because laws were passed by the government. Some consider the death penalty murder. But uts not because the government has determined it is not.

You carjack example proves my point. The government has made that determination.

"Might makes right" is not a very good (or Christian) legal system.

 

[JosephZ]

Yes they did.

Every offer to the Palestinians has included restrictions on their resources, airspace, borders, movements, and self defense. Below is a reply I gave to you in another thread last year.

Every offer presented by Israel to date has prevented the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. A state is not sovereign if another country puts restrictions on or has some level of control over its resources, airspace, borders, movement of its people, and/or security, which Israel has included to some degree in each of its proposals to the Palestinians over the years. I have asked you if you would accept what had been offered to the Palestinians in this post, but you never answered the question.

The linked post in that response stated the following:

The Camp David and Taba summits provided the most generous offers to the Palestinians, yet there would be no recognition of statehood; it wouldn't allow the Palestinians to have a military, and they wouldn’t have control over their airspace. Israeli aircraft would be able to patrol and conduct surveillance of the Palestinian territories at any time for any reason without having to consult with Palestinian authorities. Palestinians also wouldn't have a guarantee of freedom of movement from north to south in the West Bank and between the West Bank and Gaza. Israel would also have control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam, which had once been under Palestinian control. Does that sound reasonable to you? If you were negotiating peace between the US and one of its adversaries and it proposed similar terms, would you accept them?

 

[BCP1928]

There's something else going on here. Rjs is pushing a false narrative that even many Jews and Palstinians find unconvincing. I assume that he is doing it in good faith, but somebody is lying to him, probably David Barton. Then we have a Presidential edict defining any criticism of Netanyahu's government whatsoever as antisemitism and support for terrorism. That's just weird. What's all this game playing about?