• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Myth #1... Israel is "Stolen Land"

Apocalypse said:
Fine, but Israel did not "declare a hostile takeover of a portion" of the Arabs country.
Heck, the Arabs had no country! :doh
Click to expand...

Truth doesn't matter when there is some bombastic propaganda to be had.
 
Real Talk said:
Declaring a hostile take over is worse than declaring war?
Click to expand...

Hostile takeovers happen in the corporate world. The hostility in the Middle East is that of Jew-hatred emanating from the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Regardless, one would surely EXPECT an agressive response.
What did you expect? Ur country was forcefully dispossesing people of land.
I think there is a near universal saying somewhere about reaping what one sews.
Click to expand...

Arabs do not have veto power over Israel's existence, nor, Jews living in Israel, or, anywhere else, for that matter. Arab and Muslim xenophobia is their problem, not the problems of Jews. Maybe some of that foreign aid should be used toward psychotherapy for Arabs and Muslims.
 
Real Talk said:
Wrong. I have been talking about jewush supremacists, and also about palestinian ones. ANd I have not spoken a great deal about statehood, but about land rights.
Click to expand...

Pals only have land rights if they have land titles. Otherwise, legally, they have no rights.
 
Gardener said:
Truth doesn't matter when there is some bombastic propaganda to be had.
Click to expand...

This semantic definition of "country" and "nation" being used as an implicit nececity for LAND RIGHTS is the real propoganda in this thread.

People inhabited land. FACT
They were kicked off. FACT
They fought back. FACT (They were entitled to do so, in my opinion.)
They lost, and lost more land. FACT
Settlements continued, and they lost more land. FACT.
They continue to fight. FACT.
 
Apocalypse said:
No, it is not disputed last I checked. What you bought up is issues that happened between the Jews and the Arabs who lived in Mandate Palestine.
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Of course it is disputed. If it had not been disputed I could not have provided you with a quote where it is disputed and a link disputing it.
Apocalypse said:
The state of Israel was made in 1948, so I don't see what logic is it to claim they started the 1948 war before 1948.
Click to expand...


It is because of what I have already said. While there may have been killings going on on both sides the soon to be Israeli side was the one which was claiming extra territory. I do not know which country you come from, but everywhere I know of, considers it an act of war to do this.

Menachem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter’…The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”
Click to expand...

http://www.deiryassin.org/pdf/origin_booklet.pdf
 
alexa said:
Of course it is disputed. If it had not been disputed I could not have provided you with a quote where it is disputed and a link disputing it.



It is because of what I have already said. While there may have been killings going on on both sides the soon to be Israeli side was the one which was claiming extra territory. I do not know which country you come from, but everywhere I know of, considers it an act of war to do this.



http://www.deiryassin.org/pdf/origin_booklet.pdf
Click to expand...
The sites you quote from are.. suspicious, to say the least.
Anyway, by your logic the holocaust is a disputed subject, because there are people who can provide you links to sites that dispute it.
There will always be propagandists who'll claim stuff like that.
Also, I don't know where you come from, but in the rest of the world, a war is a fight between states. Civil war is what you're talking about.
 
Apocalypse said:
The sites you quote from are.. suspicious, to say the least.
Click to expand...

On what do you base that? I have not provided links to multiple sites. The link I have given has always been the same. The references I have given are contained within that. It is published by 'Jews for Justice in the Middle East'

Apocalypse said:
Anyway, by your logic the holocaust is a disputed subject, because there are people who can provide you links to sites that dispute it.
Click to expand...

that is just baiting

Apocalypse said:
There will always be propagandists who'll claim stuff like that.

Also, I don't know where you come from, but in the rest of the world, a war is a fight between states. Civil war is what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Do you then deny the action of the Israeli side which I have provided Quotes for?

Are you saying Israeli declared civil war before the date set by the UN for Partician?
 
alexa said:
On what do you base that? I have not provided links to multiple sites. The link I have given has always been the same. The references I have given are contained within that. It is published by 'Jews for Justice in the Middle East'
Click to expand...
Deir Yassin Remembered
Quite the objective site really.
that is just baiting
Click to expand...
No, this is me trying to prove you that this logic doesn't work.
Do you then deny the action of the Israeli side which I have provided Quotes for?
Click to expand...
I am quite aware that the Jews living in Mandate Palestine were involved in such actions. It was quite mutual really: 1936?1939 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I cannot tell, however, if the stuff said in your quotations is real or not as the source is a heavily biased one.
Are you saying Israeli declared civil war before the date set by the UN for Partician?
Click to expand...
No, there was no declaration of civil war or whatsoever in the area till the partition came to reality.
 
Apocalypse said:
Deir Yassin Remembered
Quite the objective site really.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with the site, that is what you will not tell me. These are Jewish people. Why would they wish to lie. Furthermore in the booklet they give several different authors. What do you believe is wrong with these people and why do you believe they would deliberately tell lies.

The say there are some unpalatable truths that people need to recognise but surely in order to get change we need to be honest.


Apocalypse said:
No, this is me trying to prove you that this logic doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Arguing that my saying things which you admit below you do not know whether they are true or not, is equatable with a holocaust denier doesn't make sense.
Apocalypse said:
I am quite aware that the Jews living in Mandate Palestine were involved in such actions. It was quite mutual really: 1936?1939 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I cannot tell, however, if the stuff said in your quotations is real or not as the source is a heavily biased one.
No, there was no declaration of civil war or whatsoever in the area till the partition came to reality.
Click to expand...

Then how can you so quickly deny it if you do not know whether it is the truth or not?
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
This semantic definition of "country" and "nation" being used as an implicit nececity for LAND RIGHTS is the real propoganda in this thread.

People inhabited land. FACT They were kicked off. FACT
They fought back. FACT (They were entitled to do so, in my opinion.)
They lost, and lost more land. FACT
Settlements continued, and they lost more land. FACT.
They continue to fight. FACT.
Click to expand...

You simplify the issue beyond necessity and do so in order to propagandize.

People inhabited land. true. Much of that land they did not own, true.

People were kicked off. only partially true. Belligerants in a struggle that arose around the time of establishing statehood left for many reasons, including those reasons involving their combat against the establishment of the state. Non Belligerant Arabs stayed , as should be obvious by the signifigant Arab population living in Israel. Jews were kicked out of Arab lands, too, too, however, and in greater numbers, a fact omitted. .

They fought back -- only partially true and very deceptive. They fought, period. The same population had been fighting since before the establishment of statehood, having iniated large scale mass murder of Jews led by the Nazi collaborating Mufti some 10+ years prior. It was the Jews who had to fight back against these campaigns of mass murder.

They lost more and more land -- partially true, but deceptive. They lost land because they did not want peace and because they kept attacking.

Settlements continued - -true. I do not support the settlements, but these are a result of the siege like mentality created by the continuous attacks as much as anything else.


They continue to fight, true. They fight to kill Jews because they value killing Jews over anything else. When they value creating a viable state, perhaps they will abandon their zeal for killing Jews and actually make one.

The nature of propaganda is to create imprtessions through half truths and deliberate omissions. When people are ready to deal with history in a way that does not include half truths and deliberate omissions, then perhaps a reasonable discussion can ensue. Until then, I doubt it.
 
alexa said:
What is wrong with the site, that is what you will not tell me. These are Jewish people. Why would they wish to lie. Furthermore in the booklet they give several different authors. What do you believe is wrong with these people and why do you believe they would deliberately tell lies.

The say there are some unpalatable truths that people need to recognise but surely in order to get change we need to be honest.
Click to expand...
You're either really, really naive or you're just playing dumb. There are many left-wing Jews who would gladly forward such propaganda.
Arguing that my saying things which you admit below you do not know whether they are true or not is equatable with a holocaust denier is trying to prove that my logic doesn't work. That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I merely stated that your logic doesn't make sense.
You said:
Of course it is disputed. If it had not been disputed I could not have provided you with a quote where it is disputed and a link disputing it.
Click to expand...
Merely having a site which disputes a subject does not make the subject itself disputed. It depends on the facts and evidence and no more than that.
Then how can you so quickly deny it if you do not know whether it is the truth or not?
Click to expand...
I never denied it. I just said it can't be counted on.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
You simplify the issue beyond necessity and do so in order to propagandize.

People inhabited land. true. Much of that land they did not own, true.
Click to expand...

False.

When the British surveyed Palestine during there Mandate, there was not 1 district that had a Jewish majority of land ownership. By square kilometers, Palestinians owned 24.6K square km of the total land. Jews owned 1.5K square km of the total land (which is roughly 26.2K square km). This was 5 years before the Partition Plan.

Gardener said:
The nature of propaganda is to create imprtessions through half truths and deliberate omissions. When people are ready to deal with history in a way that does not include half truths and deliberate omissions, then perhaps a reasonable discussion can ensue. Until then, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I left this here so maybe you'd take the time to read your own advice.
 
Degreez said:
False.

When the British surveyed Palestine during there Mandate, there was not 1 district that had a Jewish majority of land ownership. By square kilometers, Palestinians owned 24.6K square km of the total land. Jews owned 1.5K square km of the total land (which is roughly 26.2K square km). This was 5 years before the Partition Plan.
Click to expand...
Source this up.
 
Apocalypse said:
You're either really, really naive or you're just playing dumb. There are many left-wing Jews who would gladly forward such propaganda.
Click to expand...

You are so right I do not understand or no doubt according to you I am very naive. Truth is not propaganda. You need to say something other than that they are of a different political persuasion in order to uphold your belief that these people are not to be trusted.
Apocalypse said:
I merely stated that your logic doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

actually this is what you said

Apocalypse said:
The sites you quote from are.. suspicious, to say the least.
Anyway, by your logic the holocaust is a disputed subject, because there are people who can provide you links to sites that dispute it.
There will always be propagandists who'll claim stuff like that.
Also, I don't know where you come from, but in the rest of the world, a war is a fight between states. Civil war is what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

to which I said
This is just baiting
Click to expand...
to which you replied
Apocalypse said:
No, this is me trying to prove you that this logic doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Apocalypse said:
You said:

Merely having a site which disputes a subject does not make the subject itself disputed. It depends on the facts and evidence and no more than that.
I never denied it. I just said it can't be counted on.
Click to expand...


well actually you said

Apocalypse said:
No, it is not disputed last I checked.
Click to expand...

You did further say

Apocalypse said:
What you bought up is issues that happened between the Jews and the Arabs who lived in Mandate Palestine.
Click to expand...

I think you are though agreeing with this quote

“Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible interventionby the Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied. . . most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberius was occupied on April 19 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948. . . In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution.” British author, Henry Cattan,
“Palestine, The Arabs and Israel.”
Click to expand...

http://www.deiryassin.org/pdf/origin_booklet.pdf

Whether or not you like Henry Catton I assume you agree with what he says here.

I do not see how if you do and also incidents like Deir Yassin that you can argue that the plight of the Palestinians is due to the Arabs entering the war. It clearly was the situation before that.
 
Degreez said:
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
First of all you are making a huge mistake by calling the Arabs who lived in Mandate Palestine "Palestinians" while calling the Jews who lived there "Jews".
Both the Arabs and the Jews in Mandate Palestine were equal citizens, hence both were Palestinians.

Secondly, as I understand most of the land in British controlled Mandate Palestine belonged to the British government itself. Hence, Arabs couldn't own more than 80% of the land, it's just not possible.
 
Apocalypse said:
First of all you are making a huge mistake by calling the Arabs who lived in Mandate Palestine "Palestinians" while calling the Jews who lived there "Jews".
Both the Arabs and the Jews in Mandate Palestine were equal citizens, hence both were Palestinians.
Click to expand...
I agree, my mistake.
Apocalypse said:
Secondly, as I understand most of the land in British controlled Mandate Palestine belonged to the British government itself. Hence, Arabs couldn't own more than 80% of the land, it's just not possible.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for "most of the land" belonging to the British government? As I understand it, there was only one district that was majority state property of land.

The source I gave was from A Survey of Palestine, Volume One, done by the British government for the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question.
The original map is here:
http://rainbowwarrior2005.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/land-ownership-1945.jpg
THis shows the percentage of land that was Public/Other.
 
Real Talk said:
People inhabited land. FACT
Click to expand...

Inhabiting land does not necessarily equate to ownership. Title confers ownership. FACT.

They were kicked off. FACT
Click to expand...

Some were. Most fled the area due to panic over a war their Arab brethren launched in 1948. FACT

They fought back. FACT (They were entitled to do so, in my opinion.)
Click to expand...

They started the war. FACT

They lost, and lost more land. FACT
Click to expand...

Happens in war. Should have thought this possible consequence through. FACT

Settlements continued, and they lost more land. FACT.
Click to expand...

Settlements are legal. FACT.

They continue to fight. FACT.
Click to expand...

The Arabs continue to provoke conflict with Israel. Israel has the legal right to retaliate FACT.
Click to expand...
 
Apocalypse said:
First of all you are making a huge mistake by calling the Arabs who lived in Mandate Palestine "Palestinians" while calling the Jews who lived there "Jews".
Both the Arabs and the Jews in Mandate Palestine were equal citizens, hence both were Palestinians.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is not the case for jewish migrants, however.
But you are correct.
 
Degreez said:
I agree, my mistake.

Do you have a source for "most of the land" belonging to the British government? As I understand it, there was only one district that was majority state property of land.
Click to expand...

The Negev Desert, alone 50% of Israel, was State land.

For some much more in depth reading (names, dates, etc) and understanding.

From: HMAVERIK@aol

Tho Facts rarely change minds/biases against 'Israel' (cough).
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
The Negev Desert, alone 50% of Israel, was State land.

For some much more in depth reading (names, dates, etc) and understanding.

From: HMAVERIK@aol

Tho Facts rarely change minds/biases against 'Israel' (cough).
Click to expand...

United Nations
Paragraph 15 shows that of the 12 million dunums of the Negev, 10 million was owned by Arabs.

According to the Progress Report of the UNCCP (United Nations
"The total extent of the abandoned land which has passed to Jewish hands is estimated by the Commission's Refugee Office at 16,324 square kilometres and its total value at £P 100 million." Concerning the Negev: "In the Negev, 12,138 square kilometres have changed hands[land formally held by Arabs, now by Jews], of which 10,303 square kilometres are uncultivable and 1,835 square kilometres are cultivable."
Click to expand...

Again, the map that shows land ownership for Arabs, Jews, and State owned is here:
http://rainbowwarrior2005.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/land-ownership-1945.jpg
 
Great stuff!
Two Dead links.

Did you read mine which goes into great detail/shows much research... even about even which families owned what?

any answer?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom