Article: Israel attacks barbaric: ANC

Cray said:
Then by your same rationale the Jews had no right to the land either - end of story!
Click to expand...

Uh no. They have the same claim as the Palestinians which begin in 1948.
The land was awarded to them by UN mandate in 1948.
(See the the third panel of the map).
 
Found this interesting.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/debunking-map-that-lies.html#.U7_m542SzmW

Debunking "The Map that Lies"

lieposter.JPG


From Fox News:

Advertisements at train stations in suburban New York depicting shrinking Palestinian territory in Israel are riling some critics who say they are “deliberately misleading and inaccurate,” FoxNews.com has learned.

The ads, which were purchased by The Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, show the “Palestinian Loss of Land” from 1946 to 2010. An accompanying headline reads: "4.7 million Palestinians are classified by the U.N. as Refugees."

Henry Clifford, co-chairman of the group, told FoxNews.com he paid $25,000 to display posters at 50 Metro-North Railroad stations for 30 days. They are to “educate and inform people” on the proper historical context of the region, he said.

“There’s always room for discussion of different sides of every story, but there’s no room for discussion on fact,” Clifford said. “Anyone who challenges these maps and the content of these ads, it’s they’re obligation to show that they’re historically wrong. The ball is in their court.”
Excellent! This gives me the chance to repost this:



This map is a lie.

The first panel of the traditional version of this map has the biggest lie:

mapthatlies2.jpg



While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.

Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.

By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)

To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.


In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.

Now the next one:

mapthatlies3.jpg


While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership. The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.

Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.

In other words, this progression of maps is a series of lies meant to push a bigger lie, and it is tragic that a lot of people believe them to be the truth.

Here is a small attempt on my side to show a more accurate picture of Israel's giving land it controlled up for peace since 1967:

Israeli+land+concessions.jpg


This map shows that Israel gave up control of the Sinai, Gaza, Southern Lebanon and much of the West Bank over the years. Rather than falsely accusing Israel as a land-grabbing rogue state, it accurately shows Israel as perhaps the only state in history that has voluntarily given up more than two-thirds of the areas it controls in exchange for nothing more than a paper agreement - or sometimes not even that. All at the risk of serious security concerns for her people, no less.

This is all because Israel wants, desperately, to live in real peace with her neighbors. This desire is not reciprocated by those neighbors, unfortunately.

The real map shows the truth of Israel's incredible concessions in the often vain hope for peace.


Now, as far as the right-hand side of the ad goes, I have debunked that as well; my most recent one was this post from less than a month ago.


So, Mr. Clifford, I've shown how every pixel in your posters are historically wrong.


Will you answer me, or admit the truth?


The ball is in your court.


(By the way, as of two days ago, the webpage for the organization named in these ads has received fewer hits total in its history than I receive an hour.)
Click to expand...
 
falcon786 said:
Thanks very nice picture detailing the exact land issues.

The stark difference between 1946-1947 is huge and how did the UN ever justify this baffles me.No wonder the Palestinian leaders at the time opposed it,who would willingly concede so much of their land for nothing?It honestly doesn't make sense,did the world just expect the Palestinian people to roll over and play dead?

How can anyone defend such injustice against the Palestinians?Was the world feeling sorry for the Jews and in their grief blindly gave them another nations land(or rather gave the Zionists land),so lets solve injustice with further injustice,two wrongs make a right,lol honestly what in the world was the UN at the time thinking?!!Look at the mess it has left since then with the biggest loosers still being the Palestinians until today.

Is this justice in anybody here's eyes?
Click to expand...

The biggest issue to me is how in the hell could the British give land that did not even belong to them in the first place? They had a mandate and all they did with it was screw over the people who lived in there.
The then newly formed Zionist movement one day decided that they want a homeland in Palestine and they rubbed the British the right way to give it to them. That whole notion just seems odd.

And then after what the Nazi party did to the Jewish population of Europe, which was a tragedy of epic proportions, why then take the land of Palestinians who had nothing to do with it? Maybe they should have instead given the jewish victims of the war a homeland inside Germany? Or maybe even inside Britain or the US since they are so quick to rush to their defence all the time. Why Palestine? No British mandate, no UN resolution could ever justify this massive injustice. Hell maybe these guys all leaping to the defence of the actions of the IDF should rather give up their own homes and give it to them, and allow the Palestinians to go back to where they were. Then Hamas wouldn't even need to fire a spitball.
But I don't think they need to, I think Israel should move back into 1947 boarders. Even though this is still very unfair to the Palestinians. I wonder if the Zionists would take that now, or is their hunger to take more and more that strong. I mean they have bigger guns so they must be entitled to something right? Right??
 
Garyvdh said:
Except, it wasn't their land... it never was.
Before 1917 they were part of the Greater Ottoman Empire.
After 1917 they were governed by Britain up until 1948.
After 1948 It was Israel except for the land set aside for them by the UN.

Seriously, this is History 101.
Click to expand...

How is this not making sense to you,this was Palestinian peoples land irrespective of what they were called at the time or who ruled over them be it the Ottoman empire or the British,the Zionists purposely moved in here and bought up land to coax the UN to form a state for them but ultimately the majority of the land was the people of Palestines' which was given to a Zionist state.

They were the indigenous people of the area in 1917-1946.That fact cant change irrespective of who was ruling over them.A Zionist state was imposed over them and their lands rather than a democratic state,that's wrong in anybodies book.
 
Cray said:
Phew, so you fully support the Zulu land claim detailed below...

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zula-leaders-to-make-massive-land-claim-20140706

If not why the contradiction in your views? Surely it's all about who was there first stretching back thousands of years? After all the Zulus held that land only 180 years ago.
Click to expand...

I will entertain your thread derail, but only to provide you with a satisfactory answer (even though the Zulu land claim has absolutely nothing historically to do with Israel)
I do not support this land claim, for several logical reasons

The Zulus were at war with their own people and the concept of a "country" or borders was foreign to them.
They legally traded large portions of their land en masse to the Voortrekkers.
They were then subdued and willingly placed themselves under the Voortrekers when the Boer Republic was formed in 1839.
Later the British annexed the land when war broke out, Mpande the Zulu leader switched allegiances to the British.
Later when the Anglo-Zulu war broke out, they were completely subdued by the British and became part of that country.
 
daveza said:
The obvious question is who owned/lived on the land in 200BC, 300BC, 500BC ?
Click to expand...

200 BC - The Seleucids
300 BC - Empire of Alexander
500 BC - The Babylonians and then the Medo-Persians.
600 BC - The Kingdom of Judea
1000 BC - The Kingdom of David
Pre-1000 BC - The Canaanites lived in "city states"

You wanna give it back to the Canaanites?
Good luck finding one! ;)
 
Garyvdh said:
I will entertain your thread derail, but only to provide you with a satisfactory answer (even though the Zulu land claim has absolutely nothing historically to do with Israel).
Click to expand...

Considering it's about land ownership the parallels are easy to see.



Garyvdh said:
I do not support this land claim, for several logical reasons

The Zulus were at war with their own people and the concept of a "country" or borders was foreign to them.
They legally traded large portions of their land en masse to the Voortrekkers.
They were then subdued and willingly placed themselves under the Voortrekers when the Boer Republic was formed in 1839.
Later the British annexed the land when war broke out, Mpande the Zulu leader switched allegiances to the British.
Later when the Anglo-Zulu war broke out, they were completely subdued by the British and became part of that country.
Click to expand...

So in other words it's a very complex issue that has no easy answer, yet you are willing to ignore the complexities of land ownership in Palestine by ignoring any legitimate claim that Palestinians have to the land purely on the basis of religion.
 
falcon786 said:
How is this not making sense to you,this was Palestinian peoples land irrespective of what they were called at the time or who ruled over them be it the Ottoman empire or the British,the Zionists purposely moved in here and bought up land to coax the UN to form a state for them but ultimately the majority of the land was the people of Palestines' which was given to a Zionist state.

They were the indigenous people of the area in 1917-1946.That fact cant change irrespective of who was ruling over them.A Zionist state was imposed over them and their lands rather than a democratic state,that's wrong in anybodies book.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking on your part. They were never citizens, they were subjects of an Empire and Caliph who ruled over them.
They had no legal claim on the land whatsoever.
They lived there by his permission and by his pleasure and were just lucky he didn't get angry enough with them to wipe them out completely.
When the Caliph sided with the Germans in WWI and lost, the land was siezed by the Allied forces and governed by the UN.
At no point in time were they ever given legal title to the land.
 
falcon786 said:
How is this not making sense to you,this was Palestinian peoples land irrespective of what they were called at the time or who ruled over them be it the Ottoman empire or the British,the Zionists purposely moved in here and bought up land to coax the UN to form a state for them but ultimately the majority of the land was the people of Palestines' which was given to a Zionist state.

They were the indigenous people of the area in 1917-1946.That fact cant change irrespective of who was ruling over them.A Zionist state was imposed over them and their lands rather than a democratic state,that's wrong in anybodies book.
Click to expand...
Yep. Land occupied by jews thrown out of the rest of europe. Refugees who decided lets ethnically cleanse palestinians, take their land and place them in ghettoes.
 
Cray said:
Considering it's about land ownership the parallels are easy to see.
Click to expand...
I don't see ANY parallels at all other than that they are both on planet earth.
Cray said:
So in other words it's a very complex issue that has no easy answer, yet you are willing to ignore the complexities of land ownership in Palestine by ignoring any legitimate claim that Palestinians have to the land purely on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...
Wut? There are no complexities and there are no legal claims no matter how hard you may wish it.
 
Garyvdh said:
200 BC - The Seleucids
300 BC - Empire of Alexander
500 BC - The Babylonians and then the Medo-Persians.
600 BC - The Kingdom of Judea
1000 BC - The Kingdom of David
Pre-1000 BC - The Canaanites lived in "city states"

You wanna give it back to the Canaanites?
Good luck finding one! ;)
Click to expand...

Which highlights the silliness of the 'we were there first' argument - from either side.
 
Oh and the UN owned. Probably had nothing to do with fact that UN was dominated by pro-jewish countries.
 
Cray said:
Considering it's about land ownership the parallels are easy to see.





So in other words it's a very complex issue that has no easy answer, yet you are willing to ignore the complexities of land ownership in Palestine by ignoring any legitimate claim that Palestinians have to the land purely on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...
Agree. Amazing how injustice is being ignored.
 
Garyvdh said:
Wishful thinking on your part. They were never citizens, they were subjects of an Empire and Caliph who ruled over them.
They had no legal claim on the land whatsoever.
They lived there by his permission and by his pleasure and were just lucky he didn't get angry enough with them to wipe them out completely.
When the Caliph sided with the Germans in WWI and lost, the land was siezed by the Allied forces and governed by the UN.
At no point in time were they ever given legal title to the land.
Click to expand...
Eish! Even squatters in South Africa get granted better rights. Imagine bringing in foreigners and evicting occupants of the land. How do people justify an injustice. Apartheid was legislated. Did it make it right? Of course not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X