Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 147 of 147

Thread: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    So? The Arabs still owned more land in almost all these districts including the Negrev.
    That does not mean that they owned more land within the partition border lines. Again your stats are by district not by the two proposed states the border lines of which did not take into account district lines.



    But the British had no right to it as they had no right to the owned land of India. Do you think the British retained that land in India even after 1947?
    India was not a territory or a mandate it was a nation-state conquered by the British, "Palestine" was a territorial mandate previously held by the Ottoman empire and the titles of the public lands which the Ottomans owned were transferred to the British following WW1.

    The waste land of a nation is the collective land of its people, so your point supports mine.
    There was no "Palestinian" nation it was a territory held by succeeding empires.


    Not before 1947.

    Um yes it was, it was an empire actually that was conquered by the British.

    The crown land is neither here nor there, the British have no right to it, it is the people's ie mostly the Arabs.
    You don't have the slightest idea how sovereignty works do you? There has never been a sovereign Palestinian state, the British crown became the sovereign ruler in Palestine after title was passed from the previous sovereign IE the Ottoman Empire.

    The Arabs however own much more land that the Jews in almost all districts, so I win.
    The partition borders do not take into account district lines so those stats are meaningless to my point.

    And the Indians didn't own their waste land but that doesn't make it anyone else's. I have debunked this. Next.
    India was a sovereign independent nation before being conquered by the British. The British did not conquer the Palestinian Mandate title was passed to them from the previous sovereign.


    No they didn't. My stats prove that and so do yours. Note that on your little map the Arabs own more land in all districts than the Jews.
    That map is from your wiki link, those are your statistics in map form, I only provided it to demonstrate how it is irrelevant to my point because it doesn't take into account the partition border lines.

    So? There was never an India. Doesn't mean they have no collective right to the land.
    There was an India.

    Where is this proof the Jews owned more land.
    [quote]
    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

    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.

    Myths & Facts - Partition

    My statistics show that is wrong, and you just ignore them, and your map does as well.
    Your map is by district and does not take into account the partition border lines thus it is irrelevant to the conversation.

    Actually they were about 10% in 1918. They grew, often through illegal immigration or the help of a colonial power, but where not a majority.
    Um no most of the immigration was completely legal it was the illegal Arab immigration that was not restricted by the British because they wanted Arab backing during WW2.

    The Demographics Of Palestine In 1918



    The findings of the investigation, known as the King-Crane Commission Report make it clear that Muslims made up 80% of the population of Palestine at that time, while Christians made up less than 10% and Jews slightly more than 10%. The report further clarifies that both Muslims and Christians, or somewhere between 80% and 90% of the people of Palestine, were emphatically and almost unanimously opposed to the erection of a Zionist state in Palestine, while Jews were enthusiastically in favor.


    Man I just pwned you good.
    They were a majority at the time of partition, furthermore; your source does not state if it was for the entire mandate or just the mandate west of the Jordan river.

  2. #142
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    That does not mean that they owned more land within the partition border lines. Again your stats are by district not by the two proposed states the border lines of which did not take into account district lines.
    What? Your stats show they own more land in the partition border lines.




    India was not a territory or a mandate it was a nation-state conquered by the British
    No it wasn't. It was never a nation-state until 1947. It was a patchwork of rulers, including a foreign empire; the Moghuls.





    There was no "Palestinian" nation it was a territory held by succeeding empires.
    So was India.


    Um yes it was, it was an empire actually that was conquered by the British.
    You mean the foreign led Moghul empire, much like the Ottomans, and that was only part of India.


    You don't have the slightest idea how sovereignty works do you? There has never been a sovereign Palestinian state, the British crown became the sovereign ruler in Palestine after title was passed from the previous sovereign IE the Ottoman Empire.
    And this does not give them the right to the wasteland of that nation as can be shown in India or Ireland.


    The partition borders do not take into account district lines so those stats are meaningless to my point.
    No they aren't. It shows that within

    India was a sovereign independent nation before being conquered by the British. The British did not conquer the Palestinian Mandate title was passed to them from the previous sovereign.
    You seem to know nothing of history.


    There was an India.


    [quote]
    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

    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.

    Myths & Facts - PartitionYes but this has been debunked by my quoting the actual British stats and your own map.


    Your map is by district and does not take into account the partition border lines thus it is irrelevant to the conversation.
    But if the Arabs own more land in each district then they can't own less in any amalgamation of districts, your argument doesn't make a lick of sense and can only be seen as an attempt to get away from admitting you are wrong.


    Um no most of the immigration was completely legal it was the illegal Arab immigration that was not restricted by the British because they wanted Arab backing during WW2.
    Well actually quite a bit was illegal, the Brits tried to stop a lot of it but even the legal stuff was done under the allowance of a foreign power and not the Arabs themselves.


    They were a majority at the time of partition
    Actually I don't think that is quite true but you seem to have admitted my point. It was simply the illegal immigration and "legal" immigration allowed by the British that got the population to that point.

    Do you feel that illegal Mexican immigrants should have a say in the running of the US?

    , furthermore; your source does not state if it was for the entire mandate or just the mandate west of the Jordan river.
    It is talking about what is today Israel and Palestine. This one makes it clearer though.

    Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian - ProCon.org
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #143
    Advisor Burning Giraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Burgaw, NC
    Last Seen
    07-27-10 @ 08:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    357

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    All they have to do is recognize Palestine and leave the occupied territories
    and convert to Islam or pay a tax, or leave the middle east all together, or simply line up to be killed. Oversimplification is the hallmark of political debates is it not?

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    What? Your stats show they own more land in the partition border lines.
    Yes my stats were only for the lands partitioned for the state of Israel.



    No it wasn't. It was never a nation-state until 1947. It was a patchwork of rulers, including a foreign empire; the Moghuls.
    And before that they were an independent Hindu kingdom.




    So was India.
    No it was an independent kingdom first conquered by the Muslims and then by the British.

    You mean the foreign led Moghul empire, much like the Ottomans, and that was only part of India.
    A) The Moghul empire didn't extend out of India.

    B) Prior to the Moghuls

    And this does not give them the right to the wasteland of that nation as can be shown in India or Ireland.
    There was no Palestinian nation it is a figment of your imagination, the British were the legal title owners of said land not the Arabs.

    No they aren't. It shows that within
    ???

    You seem to know nothing of history.
    The Mughal empire was an independent and sovereign state that existed entirely within the Indian subcontinent, and prior to the Mughals there were numerous Hindu kingdoms.






    Yes but this has been debunked by my quoting the actual British stats and your own map.
    That was your map from the link in the wiki article that you provided, and no my stats have not been debunked because your map does not take into account the partition border lines.

    But if the Arabs own more land in each district then they can't own less in any amalgamation of districts, your argument doesn't make a lick of sense and can only be seen as an attempt to get away from admitting you are wrong.
    lol wow are you being intentionally obtuse? The partition border lines cut through districts thus the total land ownership within said district is irrelevant. Let's say you have a circle the right side constitutes 60% of the total area of the circle (Arab owned land) and the left side constitutes 40% of the total area of the circle (Jewish owned land) now if you cut that circle in half along the dividing line, how much of the left side of the circle would be owned by the Jews? That would be 100%. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

    [quote]
    Well actually quite a bit was illegal, the Brits tried to stop a lot of it but even the legal stuff was done under the allowance of a foreign power and not the Arabs themselves.

    Actually I don't think that is quite true but you seem to have admitted my point.
    Jewish State) Arab pop: 407,000 45% Jewish pop: 498,000 55% 905,000

    It was simply the illegal immigration and "legal" immigration allowed by the British that got the population to that point.
    So what if they were immigrants? The only reason why the Arabs were in a majority is because they conquered the territory and mass migrated there too.

    Do you feel that illegal Mexican immigrants should have a say in the running of the US?
    The U.S. is a sovereign nation state there has never in the history of this planet been a Palestinian state.

  5. #145
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Yes my stats were only for the lands partitioned for the state of Israel.
    And showed Arabs owned more land in all districts.





    And before that they were an independent Hindu kingdom.
    Actually no, there was a Moghul(Muslim empire.) and other kingdoms.






    No it was an independent kingdom first conquered by the Muslims and then by the British.
    I think this extreme lack of historical knowledge has ruled you out of the debate. And CC thought we couldn't come to a conclusion.



    A) The Moghul empire didn't extend out of India.
    Moghul means Mongol, it was a foreign power, it ended up being mostly in what is now India but that doesn't change much

    B) Prior to the Moghuls
    It was never a single state and any way the nation-state is a post Westphalian phenomena.



    There was no Palestinian nation it is a figment of your imagination, the British were the legal title owners of said land not the Arabs.
    I didn't say there was a nation-state(a nation does not require a state.). This doesn't mean the people of the area didn't have a collective right to the unused land as in any colonial area.



    The Mughal empire was an independent and sovereign state that existed entirely within the Indian subcontinent, and prior to the Mughals there were numerous Hindu kingdoms.
    You keep changing your mind. No you admit there was no Indian state. The Moghul empire became mostly an Indian thing ruled by foreigners but none of this gave the British the right to Indian unowned land after 1947.








    That was your map from the link in the wiki article that you provided, and no my stats have not been debunked because your map does not take into account the partition border lines.
    Your stats have been debunked, this last part doesn't even make sense, aside from the fgact it was your map the Arabs still owned more land in all districts so they can't own less land in the whole of the partition.


    lol wow are you being intentionally obtuse? The partition border lines cut through districts thus the total land ownership within said district is irrelevant.
    Oh come on what bull****. Do you have proof for this? Are you expecting anyone to believe that the partition could have been set up thus so that it zig-zaged to create such a land ownership.

    Let's say you have a circle the right side constitutes 60% of the total area of the circle (Arab owned land) and the left side constitutes 40% of the total area of the circle (Jewish owned land) now if you cut that circle in half along the dividing line, how much of the left side of the circle would be owned by the Jews? That would be 100%. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.
    But it is unsupported make belief, it is extremely unlikely land was divided up in such an easily paritioned way in the various districts.

    [quote]
    Well actually quite a bit was illegal, the Brits tried to stop a lot of it but even the legal stuff was done under the allowance of a foreign power and not the Arabs themselves.





    So what if they were immigrants? The only reason why the Arabs were in a majority is because they conquered the territory and mass migrated there too.
    When? A millenia before, that is dodgy history but it proves nothing, the Jewish population was still made up of a mostly a mixture of recent illegal and legal, colonial set up immigrants. I would never take such a situation if it happened in my Dorset. If France invaded, put a lot of citizens on its soil and stole a lot of the land I woupld rightly feel aggressed upon. You have basically admitted all my points, even with the caveats.


    The U.S. is a sovereign nation state there has never in the history of this planet been a Palestinian state.
    What does this have to do with the moral conception that the Palestinians were aggressed on?
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    And showed Arabs owned more land in all districts.
    Which does nothing to disprove the statistics showing that more Jews owned land within the land partitioned for the state of Israel.



    Actually no, there was a Moghul(Muslim empire.) and other kingdoms.
    And before that they had succeeding Hindu dynasties.






    I think this extreme lack of historical knowledge has ruled you out of the debate. And CC thought we couldn't come to a conclusion.

    Try again sport:

    History of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Moghul means Mongol, it was a foreign power, it ended up being mostly in what is now India but that doesn't change much
    The Muslims conquered the Hindus who had their own system of government, their own laws, were independent, and had their own kingdom.


    It was never a single state and any way the nation-state is a post Westphalian phenomena.
    What ever's clever, there has never been a "Palestinian" state, kingdom, empire, it has always been the proxy possession of other kingdoms, states, and empires, that is except of course for Judea and now Israel



    I didn't say there was a nation-state(a nation does not require a state.). This doesn't mean the people of the area didn't have a collective right to the unused land as in any colonial area.
    There was no Palestinian nation either, the Arabs who today call themselves Palestinians didn't begin to do so until after 1967 when Egypt and Jordan renounced their territorial claims to Gaza and the West Bank respectively.


    You keep changing your mind. No you admit there was no Indian state. The Moghul empire became mostly an Indian thing ruled by foreigners but none of this gave the British the right to Indian unowned land after 1947.
    Prior to the Moghul empire and the Sultanate invasions and conquering of India it had an independent Hindu kingdoms and empires.




    Your stats have been debunked, this last part doesn't even make sense,
    I guess basic math is not your strong suit.

    aside from the fgact it was your map
    No it was your map, you follow your citation for your statistics to the link on the wikipedia article and then click it you get that map.

    the Arabs still owned more land in all districts so they can't own less land in the whole of the partition.
    Wow wow wow THE PARTITION BORDERS CUT THROUGH DISTRICTS THEY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DISTRICT LINES!!! The statistics for the districts are completely meaningless when talking about the land ownership within the partition borders.

    Oh come on what bull****. Do you have proof for this? Are you expecting anyone to believe that the partition could have been set up thus so that it zig-zaged to create such a land ownership.
    I've shown you the partition borders, I have put that map right next to your map, I have shown that nearly 60% of the state of Israel fell into the Negev where the crown owned 85% of the land, I have provided the statistics for land ownership WITHIN THE PARTITION, so that would be a resounding ****ing yes.

    But it is unsupported make belief, it is extremely unlikely land was divided up in such an easily paritioned way in the various districts.
    It is supported by statistics, a link, and a citation good enough for any scholarly work on this planet. And no it is not unlikely in the slightest because the Jews and the Arabs were concentrated into nearly completely separate communities. Jews lived amongst Jews and Arabs amongst Arabs, so the land ownership would have been concentrated as well making it very easy to draw the borders in such a way as to keep Arab land in Arab hands and Jewish land in Jewish hands.


    When? A millenia before, that is dodgy history
    No actually it's not the Muslims conquered that land through the sword just as they conquered all of the land currently under Islamic imperialist occupation by the sword.

    but it proves nothing, the Jewish population was still made up of a mostly a mixture of recent illegal and legal, colonial set up immigrants. I would never take such a situation if it happened in my Dorset. If France invaded, put a lot of citizens on its soil and stole a lot of the land I woupld rightly feel aggressed upon. You have basically admitted all my points, even with the caveats.
    Well then I suppose Australia must be disbanded and given back to the Aborigines, the U.S. must be handed back to the Native Americans, all of Latin America too, oh and not to mention your country I demand that all English immediately leave their Island and give it back to their rightful owners the celts. Anglo-Saxons and Normans GET THE **** OFF MY ISLAND.

    What does this have to do with the moral conception that the Palestinians were aggressed on?
    Because the "Palestinians" were not aggressed upon in fact they didn't even call themselves "Palestinians" until 1967, it's not as if the British conquered Palestine, took "Palestinian" land, and gave it to Jews, because the land never belonged to the Arabs in the first place, prior to British control over the mandate the land which became crown land was owned by the Ottomans, this lands title was then transferred to the Jews nobody stole a damn thing. Your analogy is not even remotely accurate, a better analogy would be if the U.S. decided one day to take public land and transfer title to an immigrant population so that they could start a new nation state, would the U.S. not have the sovereign right to do so? Of course we would.

  7. #147
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Which does nothing to disprove the statistics showing that more Jews owned land within the land partitioned for the state of Israel.
    Sure it does. You stats have been disproved not least because you claim they are British stats and yet I quoted the official report. But most importantly unless one believes in an almost possible situation they make no sense combined with you map.




    And before that they had succeeding Hindu dynasties.
    In different kingdoms.








    Try again sport:

    History of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    The Muslims conquered the Hindus who had their own system of government, their own laws, were independent, and had their own kingdom.
    None of these ruled all India.

    There was no Palestinian nation either, the Arabs who today call themselves Palestinians didn't begin to do so until after 1967 when Egypt and Jordan renounced their territorial claims to Gaza and the West Bank respectively.
    So? They lived in the area, they still had a collective identity as clans and regions.



    Prior to the Moghul empire and the Sultanate invasions and conquering of India it had an independent Hindu kingdoms and empires.
    Not for the whole country.





    I guess basic math is not your strong suit.
    I bguess basic logic and debate is not yours.


    Wow wow wow THE PARTITION BORDERS CUT THROUGH DISTRICTS THEY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DISTRICT LINES!!! The statistics for the districts are completely meaningless when talking about the land ownership within the partition borders.
    That would only work if there was a fantastical distribution of Jewish owned land in these districts do you have anything to back this up? Particulary as your stats have been shown to be bogus as I quoted from the same primary source, the Brits, which said something very different.


    I've shown you the partition borders, I have put that map right next to your map, I have shown that nearly 60% of the state of Israel fell into the Negev where the crown owned 85% of the land, I have provided the statistics for land ownership WITHIN THE PARTITION, so that would be a resounding ****ing yes.
    I've already debunked the crown stuff, this does not account for the Jewish and Palestinians discrepancy .


    It is supported by statistics, a link, and a citation good enough for any scholarly work on this planet.
    Except I quoted the same source and another with very different results.

    And no it is not unlikely in the slightest because the Jews and the Arabs were concentrated into nearly completely separate communities. Jews lived amongst Jews and Arabs amongst Arabs, so the land ownership would have been concentrated as well making it very easy to draw the borders in such a way as to keep Arab land in Arab hands and Jewish land in Jewish hands.
    But for them to muster such a higher proportion it would take a fantastical distribution.



    No actually it's not the Muslims conquered that land through the sword just as they conquered all of the land currently under Islamic imperialist occupation by the sword.


    Like to get on your soapbox much?


    Well then I suppose Australia must be disbanded and given back to the Aborigines, the U.S. must be handed back to the Native Americans, all of Latin America too, oh and not to mention your country I demand that all English immediately leave their Island and give it back to their rightful owners the celts. Anglo-Saxons and Normans GET THE **** OFF MY ISLAND.
    Umm none of that happened 60 years ago (if someone takes your house when you are on holiday do you simply move on? )and I'm not even suggesting the Israelis don't have a right to Israel today.


    Because the "Palestinians" were not aggressed upon in fact they didn't even call themselves "Palestinians" until 1967, it's not as if the British conquered Palestine, took "Palestinian" land, and gave it to Jews,
    But it is as I have shown here.
    because the land never belonged to the Arabs in the first place,
    It belonged individually and collectively to people often called Arabs as Ireland belonged to the Irish.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •