Palestinian Christians Refuse To Be Pushed Off Their Land

[Al B. Sure!]

The fact that prior to the mandate they were ruled by the Turks, escapes you?

So? The Turks had no business ruling them either!

The first independent Palestinian land came about after 47 when they were given, by the UN, half of the mandate. This *was* the two state solution. Rather than accept what they had been granted, they wanted all of it, declared war on Israel to destroy Israel, and lost.

Accept what they were granted? They were there the whole time.

So someone breaks into your house and says he owns it now while you pay him rent.
Someone else comes in, kicks out the first person but says he owns it now.
Then this new 'owner' says 'here, I'm giving you the second floor but the first floor I'm giving to my friend (a third guy).'

How was it ever his to give?

In the rest of the world, the assumption is you are the rightful owner of the house and deserve autonomy and self-determination. That is how decolonialism went everywhere else.

And the Ottomans were native to the region?

They were colonial powers as well, albeit at least one with more cultural and religious affinities to the natives. When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Woodrow Wilson was calling for self-determination for all native peoples.

The fact that they did not own the land and the fact that they were not independent prior to the mandate is a historical fact.

Who owned the land? Do not the ethnic inhabitants own the land? Did the American Indians own anything in the Americas? Did the Indians own India? What is the basis of decolonization if the natives do not have an intrinsic ownership of their ethnic territory?

It really depends on what part of south Africa you are talking about? The Transvaal? Cape town? Each part has different characteristics, Cape Town has more people of English extraction while the Boers are more inland. This is the result of colonization patterns going back centuries.

Many (although not all), many Black south Africans that came to the region in the 20th century, have no historical ties to the area prior. They came from other parts of Africa, and chose to live in South Africa because they could find work and have a better standard of living than where they were previously.

The Dutch have been in South Africa for a long, long, time. Longer, certainly than this ladies claim.

I have never heard anyone make the argument that South Africa is a rightfully white land. What in the world?

[Ben Kenobi]

Borders: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan follows the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba, and the Gulf of Aqaba

You accept this as fact, Kentonio?

[Al B. Sure!]

You accept this as fact, Kentonio?

Where is Palestine?

[kentonio]

You accept this as fact, Kentonio?

If you don't think Jordan and Israel have close and positive relations then you're either a liar or an idiot. I'm fully willing to accept either is possible.

[Ben Kenobi]

So? The Turks had no business ruling them either!

You asked, "how were they given land". This is why. They didn't own the land prior to the mandate, and after the Mandate they were independent.

Accept what they were granted? They were there the whole time.

Yes? and? Prior to '47 they weren't independent. After '47 they were.

So someone breaks into your house and says he owns it now while you pay him rent.

Who broke in? The Turks? Or the British who actually granted them independence?

Someone else comes in, kicks out the first person but says he owns it now.

Are you saying you reject the fact that the Jews did in fact own land and live in Israel too?

How was it ever his to give?

The fact that the British defeated the Ottomans in the first world war and this was recognized internationally at Sevres. De-Facto recognition of the Mandate. The British were free to do as they liked and they chose to attempt to implement the two-state solution and the partition. This failed in '47, and now we have the situation we have today.

In the rest of the world, the assumption is you are the rightful owner of the house and deserve autonomy and self-determination. That is how decolonialism went everywhere else.

Ok. Self-determination was part of what '47 was all about - providing an independent homeland for both the Jews and the Palestinians. They Palestinians were unwilling to recognize Jewish right to self-determination and they lost, which is why we have the borders we have today

They were colonial powers as well, albeit at least one with more cultural and religious affinities to the natives. When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Woodrow Wilson was calling for self-determination for the Arab peoples, after all, who were the natives of the Middle East.

He also called for self-determination of everyone, and this includes the Jewish people.

Who owned the land?

Prior to the Mandate? The Turks.

Do not the ethnic inhabitants own the land?

Indeed, this is the homeland of the Jewish people.

Did the American Indians own anything in the Americas? Did the Indians own India? What is the basis of decolonization if the natives do not have an intrinsic ownership of their ethnic territory?

Isn't the purpose of de-colonialization to protect the self determination of smaller peoples? Like the Jews?

I have never heard anyone make the argument that South Africa is a rightfully white land. What in the world?

Cape colony (most of south Africa, but not including the Transvaal), was established by the Dutch in 1652. This is prior to all but 4 of the original 13 colonies, only Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island are older. The Boers have been in South Africa for 350 years.

Georgia (1732)
North Carolina (1712)
South Carolina (1712)
New Hampshire (established 1691),
Massachusetts (established 1691),
Pennsylvania (established 1681)
New York (established 1664)
Delaware (established 1664)
New Jersey (established 1664)
Rhode Island, (1636),
Connecticut (1636),
Maryland (1632)
Virginia (1607)

To put it in perspective, the last Crusader kingdom fell in 1291. Boer South Africa, is closer to the crusader kingdoms in the Levant, than they are to us today.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where is Palestine?

Legally? Palestine is gone, and died in 1947 when they invaded Israel. Jordan has recognized the border as the Jordan river. Only Syria remains, and they have never claimed the west bank.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you don't think Jordan and Israel have close and positive relations then you're either a liar or an idiot. I'm fully willing to accept either is possible.

I'm not the one refighting the '47 war. It appears that Jordan has in fact, recognized Isreal and at the border of the Jordan, and has formally ceded the West Bank to Israel. It is theres, rightfully.

I was mistaken. I knew that Egypt had signed, but I wasn't sure that Jordan had in fact chosen to recognize Israel, and it appears that they have done so.

[kentonio]

I'm not the one refighting the '47 war. It appears that Jordan has in fact, recognized Isreal and at the border of the Jordan, and has formally ceded the West Bank to Israel. It is theres, rightfully.

I was mistaken. I knew that Egypt had signed, but I wasn't sure that Jordan had in fact chosen to recognize Israel, and it appears that they have done so.

Thank you for accepting your mistake. We all make them.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not opposed to Arab self-determination, fwiw. There are plenty of arab states in the region, but there is only one Jewish one.

[Al B. Sure!]

You asked, "how were they given land". This is why. They didn't own the land prior to the mandate, and after the Mandate they were independent.

So the Indians did not own India. They were given India?
The Kenyans did not own Kenya. They were given Kenya?
The Indonesians did not own Indonesia. They were given Indonesia?

Are you really on another planet with regards to the basis of de-colonialism?

Does anyone else understand what I am trying to say and can give me some support so Ben can understand?

Yes? and? Prior to '47 they weren't independent. After '47 they were

See above.

The British were free to do as they liked

Just as they were free to do as they liked in India? Just as European colonial powers were free to do as they liked in Africa?

The entire post-WW2 era in the Third World has been an attempt to correct the wrongs of letting Europeans 'do as they liked'!

Indeed, this is the homeland of the Jewish people.

There needs to be a statute of limitations on native autonomy. We can't get caught up in trying to recreate Carthage and Sumeria, after all. Maybe the statute of limitations on Palestinian native claims to Palestine has expired (as Oerdin seems to believe given his comments about where people live has changed), but given that there are untold numbers of Palestinians alive today who were around in Palestine prior to 1947, we haven't reached that point yet. Maybe it takes a century before we start saying tough luck, but we're not that yet.

And besides, going back to biblical claims would be silly given that Palestine (or Canaan) was NOT the Jewish homeland. They were invaders, as the Book of Joshua indicates, after all.

Cape colony (most of south Africa, but not including the Transvaal), was established by the Dutch in 1652. This is prior to all but 4 of the original 13 colonies, only Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island are older. The Boers have been in South Africa for 350 years.

To put it in perspective, the last Crusader kingdom fell in 1291. Boer South Africa, is closer to the crusader kingdoms in the Levant, than they are to us today.

So what? Should Black South Africans be excluded from the political process of South Africa? Were the Boers 'free to do as they like' in their political organization and enfranchisement?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

If anything can unite Ben Kenobi, Dinner, and reg collider it's racism. :*(

[AAAAAAAAH!]

That's not how we house-trained our dog. Perhaps you need to observe that the treatment of the dog is unjustified and that the one shoving the **** in its face is a terrible person.

Dinner is wrong about everything... and unsurprisingly he's wrong about how to raise dogs

[molly bloom]

it could be one of those weird american things where israel can do no wrong; every outrage, every provocation, every injustice, every act of violence committed by israel is not only justified but righteous.

or it could be because he's a colossal racist, terrible christian and all round ****stain.

You know, there seems to be some truth in your last statement....

[molly bloom]

Meh, this particular guy is in the process of proving his ancestors owned the land (though I do wonder why he doesn't have current tax records since the 1960's because if I didn't pay my property taxes for even one year I'd lose my house yet they apparently haven't paid them for half a century) but that doesn't change the facts I posted about. It is a fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of Palestinians have never had any legal right to the land they have built on and instead are just squatters and I have absolutely no problems with removing squatters or knocking down their squatter settlements.

Hmm.

The Land Code of 1858 was thus soon followed by the Tapu Law of 14 December 1858 which provided for the issuance of title-deeds. "Procedures for registration, not only of old title, but also of transfers, inheritance, vivification of mewat, the auction of maḥlūl, and prior purchase...were dealt with in the Tapu Law."14  The Tapu Seneds Law, issued in 1859, provided that "No one in the future for any reason whatsoever will be able to possess mīrī without a title-deed."15

Effects of the Land Laws

The provisions requiring registration, however, were "extensively ignored."16  The peasants were semi-literate and accustomed to a traditional society in which custom and oral evidence were sufficient to support an individual's claim to property.17  Landholders saw no great need to register their claim and often did so only when they wanted to sell it to another party.18

Indeed, the peasants had strong incentives to not register or to under-register their land. One incentive was the tradition of mistrust of or opposition to government — what Granott calls the "indolence which characterizes the peasants' attitude towards official regulations" — and the desire to avoid granting unnecessary legitimization to the government.19  A second incentive was evasion of current and potential taxes on registered property.20  A third incentive to avoid registration was evasion of registration fees21 or penalties and fines for late registration.22  A fourth incentive was evasion of military conscription based on or traced through land holdings.23

Making matters worse, the land was registered piecemeal — that is, the status of a tract of land was recorded only when the owner had it registered. There was no cadastral survey,24 and "in most cases there were no measurements or maps and it was impossible to determine the boundaries of the properties."25  Claims to disputed lands brought later were therefore all the more difficult to prove.
Hence land was often not registered in the name of its "rightful owner." As long as the peasants were able to continue working their land, the registration did not concern them. But the problems arose not just because the land was not registered; they arose also because the land was often registered in the name of someone other than the rightful owner. This occurred several ways.

The widespread practice of mushā` (collective land tenure) led to misregistration. Often a community's lands were registered in the names of a few individuals or even in the name of just one individual.26  Later, under the British Mandate, matrūk was often registered in the name of the High Commissioner.27

The effect of these registration laws have been described as "catastrophic."28  The practice of registering land in the name of a fictitious or dead individual, and the inexact and incomplete nature of the records made the peasant's claim to tenure insecure. Worst of all perhaps was the fact that local town merchants or city magnates often filed whole villages or series of villages in their own names. "The entrusting of the implementation of the [Ottoman Land] law [of 1858] to the local administration ... made a mockery of the intentions of the legislator. Instead of strengthening the state's rights over the mīrī land and the rights of the cultivators, the a`yān [notables] succeeded in registering large stretches of land in their own names."29  All together, the laws contributed significantly to the concentration of property titles into the hands of a few individuals and the state.30  One writer observes concerning the code that "long before the Balfour Declaration, which is often seen as the fount of all contention over Palestine, the inarticulate but ancient peasantry had slipped a rung on the ladder which was to lead them down into the refugee camps in 1948."31

http://www.beki.org/landlaw.html

[molly bloom]

Israel and America are both former British colonies, created by Britain out of land owned by Britain. .

Oh, Sister Bendy. You didn't do your homework, didja ?

The Council of the League of Nations

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html

Palestine was a mandated territory, not a British colony.

You suck at history.


Big time.