Abbas admits 1947 rejection of Jewish state a huge mistake

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about, I provided precise statistics proving that Jews were in the majority in the lands designated for the state of Israel and that the majority of land was owned by Jews and the British crown not Arabs, and I provided the links to back it up, you can not produce these supposed contradictory statistics provided in my links because they do not exist, all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and clothes your eyes and scream "I ZEE NOTHZING I HEAR NOTHZING!"

You sir are the epitome of fail and it's getting boring pwning your ass at every turn.

 

Yes and who was on it for the longest time? Who developed it?

Further how do you justify giving it over to Jewish immigrants over and above the opposition of the majority population who not only hold titles but have been registered as tenured holders of the land of palestine?

Where arabs could not be said to own land outright they held something else , land tenure. By that where arabs did not have their land considered private property they paid land taxes and were registered on the land. Or the land was considered the public land of the local villages - guess which villages? Thats right arab ones.

Its from your own source and describes how many people were actually living on the land. And whats more the British assignment of land was done in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority population in favour of an immigrant population also deliberately allowed in against the wishes of the locals.

Thats something you Doc would oppose in your own US of A.

Of course it was! Thats why you fail here Doc. Apart from the deliberate immigration policy, the partition was deliberately gerrymandered into areas with specific ethnic majorities against the wishes of the population in order to justify the takeover of at least half of the mandate.
The same thing had been done in Ireland, and across the British empire where they couldnt get their way in the face of local opposition - read more on British imperialism please for your own good.

None of this gerrymandering is what youd accept to happen in your own land yet you demand that arabs accept both the past and the present - which is why youve always struggled in our discussions. You cant even justify it to yourself.

Again thats why you fail, I dont even need to. In any court the benefit of the doubt will fall to those whove been there longest and done more to develop it in the greatest numbers - that doesnt include recent jewish immigrants or any other immigrants.

Fascinating. Lets look at your own source stats;

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story1000.html

Some 24 million dunums owned by Non - Jews in palestine ala 1943. Jewish ownership 1.5 million dunums.

And by your logic, the land both owned or occupied and worked on by arabs for centuries should be logically able to be passed on to whatever army happens to be passing by for a few years with the biggest guns. Now thats absurd.
How can I prove its absurd? Because you wouldnt accept such an imposition in your own land.

Lol. Do you really think that it would have made any difference to Britain if every single blade of grass or speck of soil in palestine had an arab title in parchment sticking out from it? Just think about it, as a thought exercise - itll do you good.

The land wasnt british. It was a mandate remember? The mandate was to hold it in trust for the local population.

Remember what trust means? To take confidence in the ability of someone else to do things in your best interest. Do you think the beneficaries of the trust, ie the local population would have agreed with their public land being given over to immigrants if ever asked?

 

Ah yes I love that trick!

The arabs were all recent immigrants!

Ever read From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters? Its a great book, Im sure someone of your scholarly stature would appreciate it.

What I really love about bigots is the strange tales they would have us believe. For example in this case that whereas the people in say Jordan, Hawai, Iraq, Lebanon or wherever are an indigenous population, in Palestine where the Jews of europe wanted to be, this couldnt be so.....

I wonder if Justine McCarthy would agree with you on the source of population increases in the Ottoman and British eras? Or even the British Survey of Palestine.


Guess youll never know....

 

Several empires the Ottoman Empire only because the Arabs had acquired it when the Ottoman Empire inherited the Caliphate from the Malmuks of Egypt. You act as if Arabs weren't citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

Because they were not in the majority of the lands partitioned for the Jewish state! How do you justify handing it over to migrant sharecroppers and descendents of those who conquered it earlier? The Jews at least have a continued recorded existence on said land for thousands upon thousands of years.

A) Land tenure =/= ownership, by this point in history there was actual private land ownership within the British Empire rather than simply the lord and tenant system.

B) Once again even within the Crown Own land which was designated for the Jewish state it was Jews not Arabs who held a majority.

Complete rubbish it was not public land of the villages it was the land of Ottoman absentee land lords hiring migrant Arab sharecroppers IE it was Ottoman Crown land which was acquired by the British after WW1 and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

No it doesn't it describes land ownership.

The majority population of what? It was a British Mandate, it was not a sovereign independent state. And once again by this time it was Jews not Arabs who held a majority within the lands partitioned for the state of Israel.

They didn't seem to mind when the British partitioned half of India to the descendents of Arab conquerors and immigrants who invaded against the wishes of the Hindus whom they slaughtered in mass.

lol, o.k. so now it was wrong to grant the Jews a state on territory where they held a majority because people who didn't own the land and never owned the land held a majority within a larger territory which itself was split from part of an even larger territory under the Ottoman Empire which encompasses what is today Israel, the disputed territories, and Jordan.

It wasn't their land, they didn't own the land, and never owned the land they were migrant sharecroppers on British Crown Land.

Except that your argument is based on the fallacious logic that migrant Arab sharecroppers had somehow more right to the Crown Land than immigrant Jews.

The Arabs were immigrants too. There is no benefit of doubt needed in this situation because the previous owner is not in dispute it was the British Crown who owned the land, no court in the world would recognize squatter rights to state land.

And you once again complete ignore the 26 million dunums which was not owned by either!

Again there was no independent Palestinian state, they had no nation, and there were no calls to form such by the Arabs in fact it was the British who proposed it in the partition plan, but hey it was the British who created the Egyptian state and the Jordanian state as well, so I guess it's o.k. to create all of these Arab states along borders determined by people with maps and pens along perceived historical, cultural, and ethnic divisions, but not a single Jewish state within territory in which they held a majority.

Hindus were in the majority within India too so I guess we must erase Pakistan from the pages of history, and Kosovo Albanians were a minority within Serbia so I suppose they should have been denied statehood as well.

Again it wasn't there land, they did not own the land, they were migrant sharecroppers working on Ottoman then British owned land and whats more by this time there were more Jews living within this land designated for the state of Israel.

And at the time of partition Jews held a majority within the territory allotted to them. Regardless the British Mandate of Palestine was not created by the League of Nations it was created by the British who self imposed limitations to their sovereignty over the territory, in effect the declaration for the Mandate of Palestine was simply the British saying the territory is ours now and we'll do with it what we want IE carve it up into administrative zones and possibly hand it over to the populations of these zones when and if we feel like it.

[/quote]

Jews were part of the local population which is why the partition plan would have included not just a Jewish state but an Arab state as well. It wasn't Arab public land under the terms of the mandate public land came under the rule of the British Crown. Remember what rule means?

 

Back to Hasbara Central Doc...The propaganda is as worn as my grans old 78rpm vinyl.

 

Go back to worshiping your schizophrenic genocidal pedophile prophet may (*)(*)(*)(*) and (*)(*)(*)(*) be upon him you have no argument so all you can do is make baseless accusations and ad-hominem attacks it seems in your world that everyone who doesn't side with Islamo-fascist swine is a Hasbara agent well unfortunately for you that would include the majority of the free world rather than the far leftists, Islamo-fascists, and neo-nazi ZOD conspiracy theorists who populate the bulk of internet political websites these days.

 

The Jews actually, they have had an unbroken lineage within the Levant for 10,000 years IIRC, despite relatively recent attempts at Arabization which according to genetic testing began with the Arab conquerors in the region approximately within appx. the last 500 years.

We propose that the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews (Nebel et al. 2000). According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin. These haplotypes and their one-step microsatellite neighbors constitute a substantial portion of the total Palestinian (29%) and Bedouin (37.5%) Y chromosome pools and were not found in any of the non-Arab populations in the present study. The peripheral position of the modal haplotypes, with few links in the network (fig. 5), suggests that the Arab-specific chromosomes are a result of recent gene flow. Historical records describe tribal migrations from Arabia to the southern Levant in the Byzantine period, migrations that reached their climax with the Muslim conquest 633–640 a.d.; Patrich 1995). Indeed, Arab-specific haplotypes have been observed at significant frequencies in Muslim Arabs from Sena (56%) and the Hadramaut (16%) in the Yemen (Thomas et al. 2000). Thus, although Y chromosome data of Arabian populations are limited, it seems very likely that populations from the Arabian Peninsula were the source of these chromosomes. The genetic closeness, in classical protein markers, of Bedouin to Yemenis and Saudis (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994) supports an Arabian origin of the Bedouin. The alternative explanation for the distribution of the Arab-specific haplotypes (i.e., random genetic drift) is unlikely. It is difficult to imagine that the different populations in the Yemen and the southern Levant, in which Arab-specific chromosomes have been detected at moderate-to-high frequencies, would have drifted in the same direction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/?tool=pubmed

 

Lol...Islamo-fascist is an oxymoron. Don't take my word for it, ask Professor Daniel Benjamin.

 

It's a nihilistic totalitarian, nationalistic (pan-islamism and unity of the Ummah), overtly violent, and oppressive ideology with a religious face, sounds fascist to me.

 

Your unsubstantiated bigoted opinon means jack (*)(*)(*)(*)e.

 

A lot like Zionism then.....if you substitute Judaism for Islamism.

 

Zionism is not nihilistic, totalitarian, oppressive, or violent, in fact one can be an atheist Zionist so it doesn't even have to have a religious face.

Zionism is simply support for statehood for ethnic Jews, so in effect anyone who supports the continued existence of Israel is by definition a Zionist, but of course when neo-nazi's and Islamo-fascist swine use the term "Zionist" what they really mean is Jew which they substitute into their regurgitated classical anti-semitic canards; such as, Zionists control the media, Zionists control U.S. and British foreign policy, Zionists are responsible for all internal strife within (pick any tyrannical regime within the Middle East), Zionists control the central bank and the global economy, Zionists are responsible for this or that war, etc etc..

 

More specifically it was the local people of the time. Not Ottomans, not even Egyptians. Those people were simply the ruling administrators and they didnt build a thing, nor did they raise families on it or trade the produce of the land.

The arabs were citizens of whatever empire happened to be passing by at the time. As the Jews were. As the christians were.

Not a majority? Of course not! The demographic was deliberately engineered that way. The immigrants were brought in and the land plan curved around these new immigrants to make them a small majority over the people whod been there for generations.
I justify it easily. The locals had been there for generations in greater numbers than anyone. And the arabs, just like the jews, have also unbroken recorded existence there as we know that the land has never ever been empty.

The arabs had both land tenure and land ownership. Indeed there was private ownership in many parts of the empire - the existence of land tenure however is not an excuse to go handing out land to whomever you wish to.

It was a gerrymandered sliver majority formed over years of immigration against the wishes of the local majority.

Lol. Go on tell us. What British man had ever lived on any of this land? Name one.

Its from palestine remembered and describes who was living on the land. You refer to your original map from the same source.

Is your source credible Doctor?

Of Palestine.
The sovereignty or independence is irrelevant. The USA wasnt a sovereign independent state, neither was the entire british empire. Dont hang yourself on words that are merely made up by ancient British government officials to justify the actions they wish to take in any case.

And once again it was a gerrymandered majority created artficially against the wishes of the local population. That simple fact defeats your notion of a fair and square majority in the jewish partition areas.

The Hindus you refer to had never ever been a majority of the population in Pakistan. And the slaughter was done on all sides. Dont bring your anti-arab bigotry to me. I wont accept any bigoted arguments against anyone.


l

Lol. A gerrymandered majority. Like much of the world, up until the early 20th century England and scotland was full of common lands on which people farmed. Would it be ok by you for the Queen to ship in thousands of muslims to create their own state on these?

Try that thought on for size.

Lol, it wasnt even British land. It was held in trust for the local population, the majority of which were arabs. But please name a british person whod ever farmed there or built anything there or even name a British village there.

 

Which is superior to your argument which is based on the fallacious logic that local arab farmers had somehow only the same rights as immigrants jews from europe.

The arabs had been there for generations. The previous owner is indeed in dispute, and it wasnt the british, who held it not as its own but in trust.

Your squatter label wouldnt even stand with jewish people. The british certainly didnt consider them squatters.

Lol, Im not ignoring it. Its just that public land on which both communities live, one not being immigrants, doesnt mean its just for any imperial power to hand over to any immigrants you happen to let in Doc.

1/ The indepdence of a palestinian state was irrelevant then and still irrelevant now. Having a nation however you may define was and is also irrelevant.

2/ There were indeed many calls by the arabs, who had formed numerous pollitical parties and had hoped for decades to be granted independence.

3/ It is indeed ok, though sometimes problematic to create all these states if the locals wish it so. If they dont wish another state full of immigrants to be pushed on them in an artificially engineered majority then its not ok - what is your problem with that?

Except that the Hindus agreed to Pakistans establishment. The Kosovo Albanians were a majority in Kosovo for almost 200 years, and which was recognised as an autonomous province decades previously. You could try asking Serbia what it thinks too but neither Serbia nor Ksosovo was ever asked.

And by what means were the jewish people increasing their numbers on the public land?

Tell us, would it be cool by you for a million muslims to set up a state on yellowstone national park without even a vote from the local Americans?

Yes you keep saying that jews had a majority in their designated areas. You keep ignoring how they got there. Or on what basis the carve up was made.

The british admitted to be holding the territory in trust. Its a pity youve become such an imperialist.

Jews were indeed a part - a small part.

What does rule mean Doctor? Legitimacy? Violence? Please tell us Doctor, this should be good one.

 

It was not a mistake. The jews should have stayed in Eastern Europe, they had no right to their own state.

 

Yes indeed

The war was over.
Surely the heros would have ensured their safety within europe.

Instead they have caused decades of turmoil and strife and death and still do as we speak.

 

Which is why Israel has every right to protect itself.

 

Sure, just as Palestine has every right to protect itself.

 

Except Zionism has in its sights the land of Israel. Islamist, the world.

 

lol, the Arabs were the imperialists good god man who the hell do you think started the Caliphates? The Malamuks of Egypt WERE ARABS? The Ottomans didn't start the Caliphate they didn't conquer the Arabs it was the Arab Muslims who conquered the Turks.

Jews had been there for 10,000 years which is 9,500 years longer than the Arabs so why are the Arabs entitled to the entirety of the territory again exactly? Population demographics change through immigration all of the time, the Jewish population had nationalistic ambitions as did their Arab counterparts the only difference is that there was no Palestinian national impulse until 1967 when it was invented out of whole cloth. So in effect what you are saying is that Jewish immigrants with blood ties to the land dating 10,000 years have less of a right to said land than migrant sharecroppers and the descendents of Arab Conquerors with ties to land for only the last 500 years. And again you seem to support the British drawing imaginary borders to form the states of Egypt and Jordan and several other Arab states around perceived historical, cultural and ethnic divisions but not a single Jewish state.

So you support Islamic Imperialism and the Arabization which it brings. And this unbroken record of Arab existence in the Levant is 500 years following the Islamic conquest as the genetic testing demonstrates.

Prove it. Jews were in the majority even within the Crown Land designated for the state of Israel.

The Arab majority came about through Islamic Imperialism, Arab immigration, and a policy of Arabization within the last 500 years. Jews on the other hand have had a continued existence within the Levant for 10,000 years.

It is irrelevant to who held sovereignty over the territory.

No it describes land ownership the majority of which was either owned by Jews or the British Crown.

Palestine was a British Mandate not an Arab State and prior to that it was an Ottoman Province not an Arab Kingdom.

So now who held sovereignty over the territory and who actually owned the land is irrelevant. The Jews being immigrants is irrelevant as are the other borders of the administrative zones cut from whole cloth out of the former Ottoman Empire.

Where were these "Palestinian" nationalists clamoring for a Palestinian state prior to 1967?

As to the dissolution of the British Empire why is it you support the partition of India but not of Palestine?

The borders of the entire region were created artificially out of perceived historical, ethnic, and cultural lines. The only thing that matters is who was in the majority at the time of partition and who actually held sovereignty and owned the land.

WTF? You must be kidding.

I don't recall the Hindus invading and committing mass genocide resulting in the disappearance of approximately 80 million Muslims between 1000 CE (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 CE (end of Delhi Sultanate).

I don't recall a continued 10,000 year presence of Muslims in Scotland and England.

It was the British who held sovereignty over the land, the Jews held a majority within the land partitioned for their state, Arabs neither held a majority within said territory at the time of partition nor did they own the land, it's as simple as that.

 

Do you know what the word migrant means? The Jews have blood ties to the land pre-dating that of Arabs by 9,500 years.

Not as many as the Jews.

They held sovereignty over the territory and it was up to them how to divide the land amongst the local population which by the time of partition held a sizable Jewish minority with nationalistic aspirations who could hold a majority within territory not owned by Arabs.

Population demographics change all of the time through immigration get over it. The Arabs were themselves migrant sharecroppers.

No who holds sovereignty and title over land is not irrelevant to who controls that land.

Not along borders of the Palestinian Mandate East of the Jordan river broken off of the British Mandate of Palestine following the formation of the Kingdom of Jordan.

Immigrants are part of the local population or are you of the opinion that immigrants have less rights? The Jews had a continued presence within the region for 10,000 years which is 9,500 years longer than the Arab conquerors and migrant sharecroppers, there is nothing artificial about a Jewish state within the Levant.

Kosovo was within Yugoslavia, Albanian Muslims only held a gerrymandered majority created artificially against the wishes of the Serbian majority.

The same way the Arabs did during the Islamic conquests the only difference is that Jewish immigration was not a military invasion.

I don't recall Arab Muslims having a 10,000 year unbroken blood tie to Yellow Stone National Park.

The fact that they are immigrants is irrelevant, population demographics shift through immigration all of the times, the Arabs themselves are not natives to the land in fact Jewish existence in the regions pre-dates that of the Arabs by 9,500 years.

The lines were drawn across ethnic lines just as had been done countless times to create Muslim majority countries which you seem to have no problem with.

You seem to support imperialist rights over territory so long as it is Islamic Imperialism. Tell me again how the Arabs always held a majority in Western India.

No a majority in the lands partitioned for the state of Israel.

It means sovereignty and ownership.

 

The Palestinians seems to be realize more and more that not every nation bows before Violent Islamic Jihad, some fight back.

 

Everything is reduced to a simplistic Islamic Jihad for you, isn't it? But as you are a Breivic-loving Wilders fan-boy, it is hardly surprising.

 

Indeed, while you tell us on one hand the arabs were imperialists you also tell us that the land was previously Ottoman because of the Ottoman empire.

Make up your mind, while your at it name any actual imperialist in any arab village.

Its simply because they were there in larger numbers. Indeed the jews have a long lineage, but thats only a few of them. The rest, most of the them were in europe.

Jewish people in palestine had just as much rights as any arab. That doesnt apply to any arab immigrant or any jewish immigrant.

If the locals agree to it then why not?

Giving immigrants access to public lands on which to create a new state = wrong.

Arabs did indeed move in there, they also mated with the local population. We dont know if it was an invasion or not. Any record of battles between locals and the invading arabs?

Sovereignty is irrelevant. The word simply refers to the power of violence.

No thats the original map you showed, I showed you one from the same source.

Indeed, you keep saying that as if it means something. Before that it was egyptian in parts, before that it was ruled by Jengis Khan. None of these people ever built anything there or even lived there - all they really did was collect taxes.

Now youre getting it! Youll need practice though.
No in fact the immigration status of people across the world is of primary relevance to everyone both before during and after the time of arrival - thats why the arabs opposed their immigration just as you yourself would.

Fighting with the british against the Ottomans, or in the numerous palestinian political parties, or demonstrating in the streets or revolting against the British. Thats where.

Because the locals arranged and agreed to it.

Um none of that matters. It wouldnt matter to you and it certainly didnt matter to the arabs. It didnt matter even to the Jewish. Theres no moral requirement for anyone to ever accept the gerrymandering of an imperial power as legitimate.

Fascinating.

Lol, you dont recall any of it. Youre not that old. But ah yes, 80 million was it? Over 1000 years ago you say do you? Anyone you could name here? Any villages wiped out?

Lol. So what difference would it make if you did recall such?

Its this simple, you wouldnt accept such an imposition yourself.

 

Yes but please explain to us the meaning of migrant.

No they dont. Only those with an unbroken record of their families having lived continuously in the area can claim that. The rest are europeans.

Only a few of the jews of palestine could claim that. Most were from elsewhere. Most had never seen or set foot in the area.

It certainly was up to them how much they wanted to kill people who opposed them. As it was up to others to oppose. You wouldnt accept their imposition so its foolish to expect others to.

Indeed they do. Usually with some agreement of the locals. When there is none one naturally gets conflict just as you would give yourself. The arabs existed with a range of land holding arrangements.

The only thing that really matters is who is on the land in the greatest number and what do they think.
By the way, how is this control given and maintained?

Irrelevant. The major population centers of palestine had numerous political parties.

Lol. Of course they have less rights!
Does the local mexican just arrived in town having climbed the fence have the same rights as you, a fully fledged american citizen who can claim heritage going back before you were born?
Would it matter if he knew some other Americanised Mexicans who been here a good bit longer? Does he get to set up his own state?

Against the wishes of the Serbs? When? If it was gerrymandered it was gerrymandered by the Serbs. They had every opportunity to maintain a majority there.

Lol, classic Doctor. It wasnt? So how did all those people getting dead or in jail get there? Didnt know the British dont even need armies to obtain your much vaunted sovereignty now...Get a grip of yourself.

Is that all it takes for you to be cool with them taking it? I suppose the local americans can forget about it if the Feds tommorrow decide its ok right? After all, the feds have an army.

Lol, yeah populations shift all the time, immigration doesnt matter - wonder how many americans would accept that view.
Indeed by the same token Denmark owns England, sure who cares if the Danes havent been here in thousands of years. If they can find any genetic heritage in the population of England or find an original danish family lineage, hey presto they can set up their own state.

When was the last time an immigrant population was brought in against the wishes of the locals to set up their own state?

Why do you say that? Theres little record of such imperialism or opposition to it to make a judgement either way.

A deliberate creation. Not a prior reality.

What does sovereignty mean?