Org Mobile Site
Thread: Israel/Palestine Question
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
I guess if your a share cropper and your landlord dies you should get his land also.
Where the hell did you get the idea I believed this?I guess if your a share cropper and your landlord dies you should get his land also.
When someone agrees to become a sharecropper they do so under a contract however unfair it may be. However people did not choose to become slaves.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there and displace people who already lived there?
First of all could you show a link that Arabs emigrated to Palestine and displaced other Arabs, and secondly why should jews who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there, knowing that only violence will follow? Why should the people of Palestine be displaced following WW2, to accomodate others, when they played a relatively minor role in the conflict?Why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there and displace people who already lived there?
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
The palestinians were not slaves but rented the land they lived on and had a legal contract to do so. The land belonged to Turkish landlords not the people working on the land.
here is a link which states jewish landownership as of 1943, the survey was compiled by the British mandate for the UN.The palestinians were not slaves but rented the land they lived on and had a legal contract to do so. The land belonged to Turkish landlords not the people working on the land.
About 6% of land was owned by jews while the British mandate lists the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews, maybe Turkish landlords owned the majority of the 94% or the British thought Arab and Turkish were interchangable, but clearly the majority of land wasn't owned by jews.
My question is this how exactly did the ownership of the land change from Turkish to Jewish? Even if they didn't own the land, are you telling me that people who have lived on land that's been farmed on by their families for generations wouldn't feel attachment? Don't you think they'd be a little pissed to learn their being displaced?
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
And who would pay then the south? They were broke. Why should the North pay they freed them.
As I said earlier I would be in favor of dividing plantation land and giving it to the slaves or allowing them to buy it. At the very least the original owners should not have been able to simply go back to their land. People have had their property confiscated for a lot less than commiting treason and have been punished far worse.And who would pay then the south? They were broke. Why should the North pay they freed them.
Seizure of plantations owned by slave owners would not have been unfair, nor would it have been overly harsh, especially when you consider the crime (treason) they commited.
Is false the best you can come up with.
Been through it all before gawain , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
But hey don't let little things like facts get in your way .
the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews,
Not quite Mercian , over 40% of the land was previously either Ottoman government owned holdings , land held by bankrupted companies that had been taken over under the mandate , functioning companies that signed their holdings over to the mandate authority and church owned land that had been handed over .
Been through it all before gawain , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
But hey don't let little things like facts get in your way .
the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews,
Not quite Mercian , over 40% of the land was previously either Ottoman government owned holdings , land held by bankrupted companies that had been taken over under the mandate , functioning companies that signed their holdings over to the mandate authority and church owned land that had been handed over .
Been through it all before Tribesman , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
But hey don't let little things like facts get in your way .
But hey don't let little things like facts get in your way .
Originally Posted by :
First of all could you show a link that Arabs emigrated to Palestine and displaced other Arabs,
I have shown that most arabs in Palestine did so after the Jews also began emigrating there more times than I care to count. Your not new here youve seen them before.First of all could you show a link that Arabs emigrated to Palestine and displaced other Arabs,
Originally Posted by :
and secondly why should jews who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there,
And why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there ? and secondly why should jews who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there,
Originally Posted by :
Why should the people of Palestine be displaced following WW2, to accomodate others, when they played a relatively minor role in the conflict?
They knew the land was promised to Israel when most of them moved there. It wasnt as if it came as surprise. I guess its only fair when its the Jews who are the ones being displaced.Why should the people of Palestine be displaced following WW2, to accomodate others, when they played a relatively minor role in the conflict?
Originally Posted by :
Seizure of plantations owned by slave owners would not have been unfair, nor would it have been overly harsh, especially when you consider the crime (treason) they commited.
The south was broke as it was. What you suggest would have caused endless conflict and even more hatred for blacks in the south. They had no legal right to the land just as the so called Palestinians had no right to the land they didnt own.Seizure of plantations owned by slave owners would not have been unfair, nor would it have been overly harsh, especially when you consider the crime (treason) they commited.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
I have shown that most arabs in Palestine did so after the Jews also began emigrating there more times than I care to count. Your not new here youve seen them before.
In 1880 the population of jews living in Palestine was 24,000 compared to 450,000 Palestinians. In 1946 the figures are 600,000 jews to 1,300,000 Palestinians. For your statement to be true at least 651,000 arabs would've immigrated to Palestine that in 66 years the population of native Palestinians would've increased by less than 50%. Assuming a birthrate of at least 1% the population of native born Palestinians should have doubled. I don't have figures for birthrates at the time, but even if your right the number of native born Palestinians would've still exceeded the number of jews.I have shown that most arabs in Palestine did so after the Jews also began emigrating there more times than I care to count. Your not new here youve seen them before.
I find the possibility of a .5 percent birthrate over 66 years hard to believe.
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestine/facts.htm
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
And why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there ?
I've always been a believer in open borders so... And why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there ?
I have no problem with jews immigraiting to Palestine, but I'm pretty sure that the majority population would be pretty pissed off to learn that they were going to be ruled by foreigners who had never been to their country before.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
The south was broke as it was. What you suggest would have caused endless conflict and even more hatred for blacks in the south.
Barring a return to slavery the treatment of blacks in the south following reconstruction couldn't have been much worse than it already was.The south was broke as it was. What you suggest would have caused endless conflict and even more hatred for blacks in the south.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
They had no legal right to the land just as the so called Palestinians had no right to the land they didnt own.
I'm not arguing that ex-slaves had legal rights to their land, just that they should be compensated.They had no legal right to the land just as the so called Palestinians had no right to the land they didnt own.
What legal right did ex-plantation owners have to their land? As far as I'm concerned the government has the right to seize property from treasonous citizens and redistribute it.
I'm not debating legality here, I'm debating whats right. I could care less what a piece of paper says about who owns what plot of land, once the individual who owns that plot of land chooses to commit treason against the United States of America, they forfeit any rights they held as a US citizen and that includes the right to property.
I hate to break it to you but those figures are pretty much useless. There was never a good census.
Originally Posted by :
The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.
Take a look at this LINKThe precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.
My opinion is that there were people there, so they owned the land before the Zionists brought the Jews over. Regardless of whether or not they were Arab, Egyptian, Berber, Siberian or Celtic, they were there first and they owned the land.
I see no justification for the creation of Israel other than a lust for power. The Israelis can just as well pack up and leave to head somewhere else, I'm sure; it's the same way they arrived in Palestine.
I see no justification for the creation of Israel other than a lust for power. The Israelis can just as well pack up and leave to head somewhere else, I'm sure; it's the same way they arrived in Palestine.
This still doesn't show any proof that the majority of Palestinians were actually recent (illegal) immigrants.
All I'm getting is that the population was undercounted, of it's 2300 and I'm not thinking clearly, I gotta get some sleep.
All I'm getting is that the population was undercounted, of it's 2300 and I'm not thinking clearly, I gotta get some sleep.
I hate to break it to you but those figures are pretty much useless. There was never a good census.
Oh those figures are useless as they shatter your illusions .
At least he posted figures from a census that exists , not figures from a census that doesn't as you did with the 1840s census , oh dear that was another lie on your part wasn't it .
Youve done nothing to back up your claims other than to say false.
No , I have addressed each of those lies on previous occasions , to continue doing so to someone who is either a habitual liar or suffers from severe memory loss is futile .
So I wil repeat Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?
Oh those figures are useless as they shatter your illusions .
At least he posted figures from a census that exists , not figures from a census that doesn't as you did with the 1840s census , oh dear that was another lie on your part wasn't it .
Youve done nothing to back up your claims other than to say false.
No , I have addressed each of those lies on previous occasions , to continue doing so to someone who is either a habitual liar or suffers from severe memory loss is futile .
So I wil repeat Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews,
Not quite Mercian , over 40% of the land was previously either Ottoman government owned holdings , land held by bankrupted companies that had been taken over under the mandate , functioning companies that signed their holdings over to the mandate authority and church owned land that had been handed over .
Thanks for the info, to me it looks like the Palestinians (or arabs since the Palestinians didn't exist then owned roughly 50%.)the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews,
Not quite Mercian , over 40% of the land was previously either Ottoman government owned holdings , land held by bankrupted companies that had been taken over under the mandate , functioning companies that signed their holdings over to the mandate authority and church owned land that had been handed over .
What I'm wondering is how the jews then managed to get a hold of the remaining land, was it sold to them after WW2 and if so were Palestinians prevented from bidding on the land? Was the land simply handed to jews? Theres more questions, but these are all I can really think of right now.
Originally Posted by :
MYTH
“The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.”
FACT
As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.
The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.
The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations* went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.
The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations."1
Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left."2
When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.
The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.
The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.3
“It is hard to see how the Arab world, still less the Arabs of Palestine, will suffer from what is mere recognition of accomplished fact — the presence in Palestine of a compact, well organized, and virtually autonomous Jewish community.”
— London Times editorial4
MYTH
“The partition plan gave the Jews most of the land, and all of the cultivable area.”
FACT
The partition plan took on a checkerboard appearance largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations, which insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.
These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.3a Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.
Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.
Critics claim the UN gave the Jews fertile land while the Arabs were allotted hilly, arid land. This is untrue. Approximately 60 percent of the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.
The Arabs constituted a majority of the population in Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews. The Jews never had a chance of reaching a majority in the country given the restrictive immigration policy of the British. By contrast, the Arabs were free to come — and thousands did — to take advantage of the rapid development stimulated by Zionist settlement. Still, the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouins, most of whom were living in the desert. The remainder of the Arab population was spread throughout the Jewish state and occupied most of the agricultural land.5
According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by `Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6
MYTH
“Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.”
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a
MYTH
“The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self-determination.”
FACT
The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises.
Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence — the goal of Arab nationalists — they repudiated the White Paper.
With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was rejected.
MYTH
“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.”
FACT
At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.
MYTH
“The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.”
FACT
As the partition vote approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.8
MYTH
“The Soviet Union vigorously opposed partition.”
FACT
After the British decided to bring the Palestine issue to the UN, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's adviser on Palestine asked a representative of the Jewish Agency why the Jews agreed to let the UN decide the fate of Palestine. "Don't you know," he said, "that the only way a Jewish state will be established is if the U.S. and Soviet Union agree? Nothing like that ever happened. It cannot possibly happen. It will never happen."
In May 1947, however, Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko said:
The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defense of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration.9
A few months later, the Soviet Union backed partition and, subsequently, became the second nation to recognize Israel.
Notes
1Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976), pp. 369-370.
2Cohen, p. 212.
3 Voting in favor of partition: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Voting against partition: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Columbia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, UK, Yugoslavia. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, (NY: United Nations, 1949), pp. 246-47.
3aHoward Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p. 292.
4London Times, (December 1, 1947).
5 Cohen, p. 238.
6 Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine.
6aHistoric Palestine comprised what is today Jordan (approximately 35,640 square miles), Israel (8,019 square miles), Gaza (139 square miles) and the West Bank (2,263 square miles).
7Arieh Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1984), p. 252.
8David Horowitz, State in the Making, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), p. 233.
9United Nations General Assembly, First Special Session, May 14, 1947, UN Documemt A/PV 77.
*Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.
Digest that for a while.MYTH
“The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.”
FACT
As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.
The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.
The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations* went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.
The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations."1
Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left."2
When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.
The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.
The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.3
“It is hard to see how the Arab world, still less the Arabs of Palestine, will suffer from what is mere recognition of accomplished fact — the presence in Palestine of a compact, well organized, and virtually autonomous Jewish community.”
— London Times editorial4
MYTH
“The partition plan gave the Jews most of the land, and all of the cultivable area.”
FACT
The partition plan took on a checkerboard appearance largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations, which insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.
These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.3a Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.
Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.
Critics claim the UN gave the Jews fertile land while the Arabs were allotted hilly, arid land. This is untrue. Approximately 60 percent of the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.
The Arabs constituted a majority of the population in Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews. The Jews never had a chance of reaching a majority in the country given the restrictive immigration policy of the British. By contrast, the Arabs were free to come — and thousands did — to take advantage of the rapid development stimulated by Zionist settlement. Still, the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouins, most of whom were living in the desert. The remainder of the Arab population was spread throughout the Jewish state and occupied most of the agricultural land.5
According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by `Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6
MYTH
“Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.”
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a
MYTH
“The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self-determination.”
FACT
The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises.
Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence — the goal of Arab nationalists — they repudiated the White Paper.
With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was rejected.
MYTH
“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.”
FACT
At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.
MYTH
“The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.”
FACT
As the partition vote approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.8
MYTH
“The Soviet Union vigorously opposed partition.”
FACT
After the British decided to bring the Palestine issue to the UN, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's adviser on Palestine asked a representative of the Jewish Agency why the Jews agreed to let the UN decide the fate of Palestine. "Don't you know," he said, "that the only way a Jewish state will be established is if the U.S. and Soviet Union agree? Nothing like that ever happened. It cannot possibly happen. It will never happen."
In May 1947, however, Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko said:
The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defense of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration.9
A few months later, the Soviet Union backed partition and, subsequently, became the second nation to recognize Israel.
Notes
1Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976), pp. 369-370.
2Cohen, p. 212.
3 Voting in favor of partition: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Voting against partition: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Columbia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, UK, Yugoslavia. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, (NY: United Nations, 1949), pp. 246-47.
3aHoward Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p. 292.
4London Times, (December 1, 1947).
5 Cohen, p. 238.
6 Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine.
6aHistoric Palestine comprised what is today Jordan (approximately 35,640 square miles), Israel (8,019 square miles), Gaza (139 square miles) and the West Bank (2,263 square miles).
7Arieh Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1984), p. 252.
8David Horowitz, State in the Making, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), p. 233.
9United Nations General Assembly, First Special Session, May 14, 1947, UN Documemt A/PV 77.
*Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.
Been through it all before Tribesman , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?
(or arabs since the Palestinians didn't exist then owned roughly 50%.)
Read the terms of the Mandate , they did exist a citizen of Palestine is a Palestinian , it even states that immigrants to Palestine can become Palestinians
Was the land simply handed to jews?
Some of it , some of it was seized by force of arms . Which is illegal , it is also illegal to annex land , and to top it off it is also illegal to transfer any of your civilian population onto land you have occupied . Silly little laws they made up to try and stop countries looking for a little living-room at their neighbours expense .
Nice cut and paste Gawain , any chance of a link to the source
Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?
(or arabs since the Palestinians didn't exist then owned roughly 50%.)
Read the terms of the Mandate , they did exist a citizen of Palestine is a Palestinian , it even states that immigrants to Palestine can become Palestinians
Was the land simply handed to jews?
Some of it , some of it was seized by force of arms . Which is illegal , it is also illegal to annex land , and to top it off it is also illegal to transfer any of your civilian population onto land you have occupied . Silly little laws they made up to try and stop countries looking for a little living-room at their neighbours expense .
Nice cut and paste Gawain , any chance of a link to the source
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO