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

[BCP1928]

Sorry but that map is misleading. The Arabs did not own 50% of the land. The majority of tge land was public land and not titled to the Arabs. The actual amount of land titled and owned by the Arabs, particularly in the land mandated to the Jews both by the League of Nations and the UN was about 8 %.

The majority of land the Arabs were on was public land which is government land. Arabs were able to lease land from the government but they didn't own it.

The Arabs in the region didn't buy and title land becauae they didn't want to pay taxes. There were so many of them that were tribal and Bedouins who traveled around from place to place. It was a pretty primitive region.

In May 1948 the State of Israel was established in only part of the area allotted by the original Agreement set forth in the 1920 San Remo Conference and its implementation by the League of Nations Mandate. 8.6 per cent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.3 per cent by Israeli Arabs, while 16.9 per cent had been abandoned by Arab owners who imprudently heeded the call from neighboring Arab countries to "get out of the way" while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of Israel. The rest of the land—over 70 per cent—had been vested in Appendix 2 127 the Mandatory Power as a trustee for the Jewish people, and accordingly reverted to the State of Israel as its legal heir. (Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257.)

The greater part of this 70 per cent consisted of the Negev, some 3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 per cent of the 6,580,000 acres in all of Mandatory Palestine. Known as Crown or State Lands, this was mostly uninhabited arid or semi-arid territory, inherited originally by the Mandatory Government from Turkey. In 1948 it passed to the Government of Israel.

No, most of the indigenous inhabitants lived on traditional leaseholds of Ottoman lands. They didn't "own" the land in the Western sense which is why they could be deprived of it. What should happen to such tenancies when there is a change of government? It's an interesting question.

 

[rjs330]

Palestinians owned around 22% of the land, Jews around 6%, and Britain, 0%. Privately owned land was roughly 54% of Palestine, with the remaining 46% being public or state-owned.

Incorrect.

Most of the usable public land was occupied by or leased to Palestinian Arabs but not formally titled to them. However, this land was able to be occupied and even passed down to family members as long as the land was being used and the taxes were being paid.

In other words they didn't own it.

If you pay attention to your tables the taxable land owned or leased by the Jews is higher than that owned or leased by the Arabs in the region.

Arabs 361,000
Jews 448,000

In the other table it shows again that the Jews leased more land that the Arabs.

As you quoted the land was NOT owned by the leasor. They could keep the lease as long as they paid. Its no different than leasing land today, as its owned by someone else and I can use it as long as I pay. But its NOT MY LAND.

Your ownership table says Arabs and non-Jews.

Only 30% of the land that Israel was founded on was privately owned by Arabs and Jews. And the Arab were able to KEEP THEIR PROPERTY. The remaining 70% of the land was government land.

So to keep saying that the land was STOLEN land is patently false and a complete lie. Because the land owning Arabs were able to keep their property when Israel was founded. You aren't stealing anything when you allow the owner to keep it.

 

[rjs330]

No, most of the indigenous inhabitants lived on traditional leaseholds of Ottoman lands. They didn't "own" the land in the Western sense which is why they could be deprived of it. What should happen to such tenancies when there is a change of government? It's an interesting question.

Incorrect. MOST of the inhabitants did not lease the land from the Ottomans. Even if they did it didn't belong to them.

When Israel was founded only about 30% of the land was privately owned. And the owners, regardless of who they were allowed to keep their land. This whole idea that it was stolen is patently false. A lie.

 

[BCP1928]

Incorrect.

In other words they didn't own it.

If you pay attention to your tables the taxable land owned or leased by the Jews is higher than that owned or leased by the Arabs in the region.

Arabs 361,000
Jews 448,000

In the other table it shows again that the Jews leased more land that the Arabs.

As you quoted the land was NOT owned by the leasor. They could keep the lease as long as they paid. Its no different than leasing land today, as its owned by someone else and I can use it as long as I pay. But its NOT MY LAND.

Your ownership table says Arabs and non-Jews.

Only 30% of the land that Israel was founded on was privately owned by Arabs and Jews. And the Arab were able to KEEP THEIR PROPERTY. The remaining 70% of the land was government land.

So to keep saying that the land was STOLEN land is patently false and a complete lie. Because the land owning Arabs were able to keep their property when Israel was founded. You aren't stealing anything when you allow the owner to keep it.

You really are trying too hard with this. What's the point? Why is it so important to you to "prove" that we are trying to whitewash the Palestinians?

 

[rjs330]

Can you provide a link for this?

I dont do links anymore. I've learned its a waste of time. For so many topics it just turns into a link war. Either accept rhat what I am posting is correct or dont. I dont care. I won't ask for your links, dont ask for mine.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As you quoted the land was NOT owned by the leasor. They could keep the lease as long as they paid. Its no different than leasing land today, as its owned by someone else and I can use it as long as I pay. But its NOT MY LAND.

As pointed out in a previous post, the concept of "miri" land isn't really the same as a western land lease. The key difference is that the lease is inherited, and the only way that the land can be removed for your possession is if you stop paying the lease, die without any heirs, or abandon the land. Barring the word "lease," that sounds a lot like the western concept of land ownership, right? So long as you pay your taxes (aka the "lease"), the land is yours and can be passed to your descendants in perpetuity. If you fail to pay taxes or abandon the land, the government can seize it.

 

[rjs330]

You really are trying too hard with this. What's the point? Why is it so important to you to "prove" that we are trying to whitewash the Palestinians?

Because claim has always been that the Palestinians had their land stolen from them and its okay if they attack the Jews because of it.

Its hogwash. An anti-Semitic lie.

 

[BCP1928]

As pointed out in a previous post, the concept of "miri" land isn't really the same as a western land lease. The key difference is that the lease is inherited, and the only way that the land can be removed for your possession is if you stop paying the lease, die without any heirs, or abandon the land. Barring the word "lease," that sounds a lot like the western concept of land ownership, right? So long as you pay your taxes (aka the "lease"), the land is yours and can be passed to your descendants in perpetuity. If you fail to pay taxes or abandon the land, the government can seize it.

Many Palestinians fled the early violence or were intimated to leave and were then deemed to have "abandoned" their leases.

 

[BCP1928]

Because claim has always been that the Palestinians had their land stolen from them and its okay if they attack the Jews because of it.

Its hogwash. An anti-Semitic lie.

No, it's your lie. Nobody here has made a claim like that.

 

[rjs330]

As pointed out in a previous post, the concept of "miri" land isn't really the same as a western land lease. The key difference is that the lease is inherited, and the only way that the land can be removed for your possession is if you stop paying the lease, die without any heirs, or abandon the land. Barring the word "lease," that sounds a lot like the western concept of land ownership, right? So long as you pay your taxes (aka the "lease"), the land is yours and can be passed to your descendants in perpetuity. If you fail to pay taxes or abandon the land, the government can seize it.

I've read up on all this. Yes those were the terms of the lease. But it was not their land. They did not own it. And the government was perfectly happy to let them keep it as long as they paid. But they still did not own it. Modern leases are typically handled differently, but a leasor even today could write it up so that the laeasor could stay and pass down the property to their descendants if they wanted to. But it still is not owned by the leasor.

When Israel was founded only 30% of the land was owned. And any Arabs who owned land were able to.keep it. Nothing was stolen from them.

Bottom line is the Arabs did NOT want Israel to have a nation there. Thats it. Period. Everything else is a distraction and often distortion of the reality that they didn't want a Jewish nation. They were anti semetic. They seemed fine with have some Jews around as long as they didn't have their own nation or government. They opposed this consistently even though they didn't own all the land.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's your lie. Nobody here has made a claim like that.

Yes they have. Ive read the posts how we have to understand why the Palestinians attack the Jews all the time. Its constantly stated its because they took the land form the Palestinians.

If no one is making that claim then why are any of us discussing who's land it was?

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

Hate speech: definition: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. The Anti-Semitic Racist protestors are chanting "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" Do you have a clue the...

www.christianforums.com

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

Hate speech: definition: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. The Anti-Semitic Racist protestors are chanting "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" Do you have a clue the...

www.christianforums.com

 

[JosephZ]

If you pay attention to your tables the taxable land owned or leased by the Jews is higher than that owned or leased by the Arabs in the region.

Arabs 361,000
Jews 448,000

Those numbers represent the amount of taxes paid on the land.

If you read the information at the link I provided you would know that the amount of taxes paid doesn't reflect the amount of property owned or the land area. For example, one parcel of land may have a higher value than another based on how many structures are on it, what improvements have been made, or the amount of crops produced. Some of the land was tax exempt.

In the other table it shows again that the Jews leased more land that the Arabs.

Arabs leased a total of 114 sq. Kilometers under both old and new tenancies. Jews leased 95.

 

[civilwarbuff]

How do you know I swallowed the "propaganda?" Did HAMAS steal food aid? I don't know, but it certainly is possible. HAMAS and other Palestinian groups have done some pretty terrible things. But that doesn't answer my question.

Then you are beyond any help I can provide to enlighten you. Just keep reading/watching your propaganda and you will live a long and happy life in your make believe world.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes they have. Ive read the posts how we have to understand why the Palestinians attack the Jews all the time. Its constantly stated its because they took the land form the Palestinians.

Whether the land was actually "stolen" from them is a separate issue. All we are attempting to convince you of is that the Palestinans believe that the land was stolen and that it helps encourage their bellicosity. Does that justify the Oct. 7th attack by Hamas? No, it does not. But it also does not justify the claim that they are solely motivated by religious hatred.

 

[BCP1928]

Then you are beyond any help I can provide to enlighten you. Just keep reading/watching your propaganda and you will live a long and happy life in your make believe world.

What part of it is make-believe? I don't claim that Israel is blocking food aid shipments.

 

[JosephZ]

Incorrect.

Those numbers came from A Survey of Palestine which was written and prepared by John Shaw the British colonial administrator of Palestine.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Because claim has always been that the Palestinians had their land stolen from them and its okay if they attack the Jews because of it.

Nobody in this thread has made that argument. Some people have said that they understand the anger of the Palestinians over the issue, but no one has claimed that it was "okay" to attack the Jews over it.

Your counter to the idea that the land was "stolen" rides on a technicality that, while it may be legally valid, does not acknowledge the family and ancestral ties that the indigenous inhabitants had to the land or the fact that they may not see things that way. The fact is that they had claims on the land, and they don't feel that those claims were respected.

Bottom line is the Arabs did NOT want Israel to have a nation there. Thats it. Period. Everything else is a distraction and often distortion of the reality that they didn't want a Jewish nation. They were anti semetic.

This is a leap of logic that doesn't have any real basis in fact, and it's the reason you're getting so much argument here. There's no question that they didn't like the idea of a huge influx of foreign settlers being forced upon them - much like you (and many other Americans) dislike the idea of a large number of foreign migrants coming to our country. But that doesn't make them antisemitic any more than your objection to mass migration makes you racist.

 

[rjs330]

Whether the land was actually "stolen" from them is a separate issue. All we are attempting to convince you of is that the Palestinans believe that the land was stolen and that it helps encourage their bellicosity. Does that justify the Oct. 7th attack by Hamas? No, it does not. But it also does not justify the claim that they are solely motivated by religious hatred.

Well you didn't have to try and convince me of that. I agree that many believe that. If you look at all tye Arabs rhat attacked Israel after they declared independance its pretty obvious they weren't wanting a Jewish state. Period. They knew whatever Arabs were there did not own all the land. They also knew that Israel was allowing the Arabs to keep tye land.

And it makes ZERO sense that the Palestinians believe the Jews stole their land when Israel said they could keep it and allowed them to.

So yes there are those who believe the Jews stole the land. Then there are those who just hate rhe Jews. To dismiss that is not being honest with reality.

Some hate the Jews because they believe they stole the land and some hate the Jews becauae they hate the Jews.

Antisemitism on Campus: Understanding Hostility to Jews and Israel

No, not all Muslims hate the Jews. But far too many do.

 

[rjs330]

Nobody in this thread has made that argument. Some people have said that they understand the anger of the Palestinians over the issue, but no one has claimed that it was "okay" to attack the Jews over it.

Rheee have been plenty of the leftists on these boards who have offered that excuse in defense of Palistinians attacking Israel. We have to understand the anger as if its some sort of excuse. I wonder if we have to understand the anger of a man who beats his wife because he believes she has cheated on him. And I saw NO call to understand the anger of the Jews after their children were slaughtered. No instead we got the call to understand the anger of the Palestinians.

 

[rjs330]

This is a leap of logic that doesn't have any real basis in fact, and it's the reason you're getting so much argument here. There's no question that they didn't like the idea of a huge influx of foreign settlers being forced upon them - much like you (and many other Americans) dislike the idea of a large number of foreign migrants coming to our country. But that doesn't make them antisemitic any more than your objection to mass migration makes you racist.

The land wssnt there's. They had no country. There was no invasion. The settlers were not foreign. Equating a land with no nation and unowned with an established nation with national borders, government and laws is foolish.

In the area they were and are most definitely anti-semetic. They did not want a Jewish nation. Every time the orders for a two state solution they said no. They did not want a Jewish state. They wanted all or nothing. Thats why they attacked.

The fact you and so many on this board are defending them is extremely concerning.

The left just keeps on defending the actions of anti-semetic terrorists. Its insane.

I'm done with this thread. The left just disgusts me with their justification of the anti-semetism on campuses and their defense of terrorists in telling us we should understand them. When their ideas are all based on the lie that land was stolen.