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. :roll: 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.
