+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Binationalism only way for Palestinian minority to be "Good Citizens"

Although Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute twenty percent of the population, they cannot partake in the Jewish ethos of the state and are considered an obstacle to the common good. How can Palestinian citizens both maintain their independent identity and achieve equality? The writer offers a binational model as the most just solution. 

By Fady Khoury

Recent legislation targeting Palestinian citizens of Israel is the product of the right wing’s view that they are “bad citizens,” because they, the Palestinian citizens, identify with the “Palestinian enemy” and refuse to acknowledge their “Israeliness.” But what constitutes a good citizen? The Good Citizen is one who invests in the state, who shares the collective goal of its prosperity, who contributes to the common good. The Good Citizen is willing to sacrifice in order to defend the state when it is threatened by external forces, abides by its laws, is an active participant in its political life and perceives its demise as his or her own.

So is it possible for Palestinian citizens of Israel to be Good Citizens within the Jewish state paradigm? Or does the exclusive identity of the state make it impossible? In my view, Palestinian citizens cannot be Good Citizens under the present paradigm, without it conflicting with the main features of their identity. If a state is to be defined based on ethnic characteristics, it must include components from its indigenous minorities’ collective identity, if they are to be invested in its development and prosperity

This view is based on the indigenousness of the minority. Minorities that are the product of immigration are morally less entitled to voice such demands, since the mere act of immigration may be construed as acceptance of the constitutional identity of the entity to which they immigrated. Classic democratic theory holds that the majority should decide on the parameters of the state. Meaning, the state should adapt to the majority, and the minority must adapt to the parameters set by the majority.

I object to this view. The structure, nature and overall identity of the political entity, cultivated at the formation stage of civilian life, should be determined through a just and moral process.

John Rawls suggested such a process, which he called “the veil of ignorance.” It refers to a hypothetical situation in which the decision-makers are equipped with relevant data about the society to which their decisions apply, with the exception of that regarding the social group to which they belong. This exercise is meant to make them consider the implications of their decisions on all sectors of society, forcing them to choose policies that are the least harmful to the weakest groups. The model is intended to guide us in eliminating partisan consideration in our quest for justice and morality, by considering the ramifications of decisions on all social groups.

The identity of a state should be decided according to this principle, as should the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Back to the initial question: how can my identity, as a Palestinian who is also a citizen of Israel, who in some respects shares the same values as fellow Jewish citizens, not stand in contradiction to the state’s identity? Under the premise of the state’s Jewish identity, my identity is an obstacle, and thus full equality can never be achieved. Any attempt to be a virtuous citizen through my cultivated Palestinian identity will fail. A choice must be made between the two.

The state constantly attempts to redefine the identity of its Palestinian citizens. It preserves the monopoly in determining which contents are to be taught in the minority’s separate education system, and in principles regulating laws and policies. This in turn invites a counter-attempt from the Palestinians to reinforce their identity and differentiate themselves, leading to self imposed segregation. Being good citizens in the Jewish state requires assimilation. Being a Palestinian is a danger to the state’s identity.

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around the lines of the two-state solution – with a Jewish state within the Green Line and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – will not fix that. A large Palestinian minority will remain inside the Jewish state and a Jewish minority will probably remain within the borders of the Palestinian state. On the other hand, the binational state model, a one-state solution for the two nations, could, if genuinely implemented, give the Palestinians and the Jews the opportunity to be good citizens while preserving their ethnic and cultural identities.

The question remains whether a binational state model should be applied to the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, or only within the Green Line. I don’t see any reason to limit the binational state only to the territory within the Green Line. Those who call for this solution must justify the need for borders. And the question of fairness towards the Jews of Israel arises, since from their standpoint, such a demand means that they would have to give up their identity’s exclusivity inside the Green Line while the Palestinians would have an all Arab state in the 1967 territories.

Even those who call for two separate states, one Palestinian and one Jewish, must explain how that would solve the Palestinian minority’s issue, which is relevant today and would still be relevant with the existence of a sovereign Palestine in the 1967 territories. There would be an absence of the groundwork enabling the Palestinian citizens of the Jewish state and the Jewish citizens of the Palestinian state, should the settlers choose to stay put, to be good citizens. The two separate ethnic states model simply will not bring regional peace, nor will it ensure domestic stability within the two states.

Arguments against the validity of the binational solution focus on claims of hatred between the two peoples. In my view, this hatred has been created and can be reversed. Most people want to live in dignity and equality. Once a structure that can offer this is established, the legal system will then deal with the violent extremists from both sides.

From the standpoint of a decision-maker who doesn’t know to which group they belong, a binational state would be the model of choice, the most moral and just. In this territory, each of these groups can preserve and cultivate their identities. If you are Jewish, you may insist on the Law of Return; as a Palestinian, you would insist on the refugees’ return – the two concepts aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

If a binational state is established, Jews and Palestinians will be citizens of a state that reflects the main features of their identities and fulfills their group’s right to self-determination. A strict constitutional frame would need to be put in place to guarantee the collective rights of both peoples, and more importantly to educate future generations, who will view their partnership as a sacred constitutional value.

The constant talk of separation fosters the belief that inherent dangers are supposedly lurking in the other side’s agenda and intentions. This doesn’t have to be the case. It became the case due to an approach of exclusivity, on the part of both the Palestinians and the Jews. In the binational state, we will all be motivated to be Good Citizens.
 

Fady Khoury is a legal intern at Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not Adalah.  
Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Volodinjev

      @Fady Khoury, you write: “Arguments against the validity of the binational solution focus on claims of hatred between the two peoples. In my view, this hatred has been created and can be reversed.”

      How do you plan to sell this equivalent of betting the farm to the Israelis? You should know, given their (Jewish) history, that they might not be very receptive to turn their country into a gambling casino, where it’s at best a 50-50 between peaceful coexistence and a Rwanda-like bloodbath.

      That said, this is a good article free of the calls for vengeance and retribution so prevalent among anti-Israel writers. There just needs to be some thought about the practical perils and possibilities.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Fady K.

      I realize that it the binational state solution isn’t applicable today. In my opinion the political discourse, that revolved now around the Left wing values and right wing values, needs to shift towards a discussion around the lines of either the one state solution or two states solution.
      Partnerships will be established and more importantly refuting some of the blindly accepted assumptions about the impracticality any partnership between Palestinians and Jews. It is simply a matter of reeducating the masses as to who the other side is. It will take time, but this by itself does not justify throwing the idea out the window without a careful and thorough examination.
      As to the details, their turn will come. Now it is important to talk about this solution without dismissing it from the get go.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Berl

      A binational state would only give to Israel (or, if you prefer, to the Israeli supporters of the settlements) the chance to build new settlements without even caring about the little pressure that it receives from the international community.
      When one of the two sides is much more stronger (in every field) than the other there are no chance to create a “fair” binational state.
      The article is in any case very good.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Bosko

      What about the army? Presumably, in a democratic binational state the IDF as we know it would cease to exist. Over time, it would have to evolve into a binational army. And then what? How would the Jewish population defend itself if the nice theory would end up in a rude awakening of strife and conflict? In such a scenario, the IDF would disintegrate and the new shiny secular democratic state would become easy prey to it’s Arab neighbours. Suddenly it would find itself as just another Arab state (the 23rd one) with at best, a subservient Jewish minority or at worst, ethnically cleansed of Jews. What can one say? To me at least, this vision represents a path back to the future.
      .
      Of course, there is an alternative vision. What about resolving the conflict. Establishing the two state solution, one Arab one Jewish. Have two vigorous democratic states living side by side with each other with strong commercial ties. As the author suggests, both states could have minorities living amongst them. The minorities should be respected, protected and have full democratic rights. However, the minorities would have to either accept the fact that the culture and the immigration policies of the majority prevails or they would have to look to move to places where THEIR culture prevails. Those are the choices that all minorities have to make everywhere in the world.
      .
      PS
      A note to the author: Please speak to the native Berbers of North Africa and examine how the majority Arab population has been treating them. They have attempted to even stifle the Berber language. I certainly wouldn’t advocate that Israel should treat it’s Arab minority in the same way. I think that Israel should allow the Israeli Arabs to practice their culture, religion and language freely and side by side with Jewish culture, religion and language.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Michael W.

      I don’t understand how “The two separate ethnic states model simply will not bring regional peace, nor will it ensure domestic stability within the two states.” And the alternative will?

      The one-state solution only satisfies the desires of one group while ignores the other. The two-state solution at least partially satisfies the desires of both groups.

      For the bi-national state, why stop at the Jordan River? If you say because that is the area under Israeli control, why are you setting its parameters by the party least likely to support it?

      Reply to Comment
    6. Calabrese

      You need to explain how Israel can continue to steal land off the Palestinians under this model – I don’t see it working.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Emet

      In North Africa there is not any ghetto such as Shuafat Camp , Tamre…ect…ect….and historically speaking there is not any comparison whatsoever between the reality in the Holy Land and the one in North Africa

      Reply to Comment
    8. Bosko

      @Emet
      So what do you think of this?
      .
      “During the 1970’s and in attempt to Arabise the registry office, it was forbidden to give Berber names to new-borns”
      .
      You can read a lot more about Arab cultural colonization of North Africa in this document.
      .
      http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/jllearn/3_1/mostari.pdf

      Reply to Comment
    9. I suggest a major error is at the foundation of this article, which is that reality is dependent on what humans wish to believe. An example being that a state can be whatever the majority of its inhabitants claim it is. This is fundamental nonsense, because reality is never a function of what humans hope is true, reality is a function of what is.

      The first reality that needs to be considered in the case of a state, is that there is an organizing force in the universe, that governs what occurs in the universe; which for the purpose of this letter I will call “Mother Nature”, MN for short. I suggest that MN decided a long time ago, that each bit of earthly land territory needed to be administrated by a certain segment of humans, but administered in a particular way: administered under laws that encourage the humans that reside in that area to each be able to fulfill her full potential, and that all the non-human phenomena in that area be facilitated to achieve their full potential.

      MN created different ethnicities and cultures, not to be a vehicle for conflict or oppression or racism; but as a way of all humans being exposed to all aspects of beneficial earthly living (each ethnicity and culture being most expert on part of the spectrum of possible human excellent existence). So within any one administrative section of earthly territory, in essence within each state, all the people who choose to reside there; regardless of what ethnicity or culture that person identifies with; be allowed to, and encouraged to by that state’s laws, achieve that person’s full potential.

      However, there is a major complicating factor. Which is that MN gave each human free wil.

      Out of this free will, MN allows humans to create the most gross distortions of her intentions; such as her intentions for how states should function. And as a result there is many a state where certain ethnicities or cultures are favored, even significantly favored coupled with major oppression of all the people who are not of that preferred ethnicity or culture and live in that state.

      And yet, MN is not stupid. Oh no! She is quite brilliant. And even though she has bestowed free will upon all of us, she repeatedly applies discipline to humans who disobey her preferred way of human life: she gives each such person more and more limitations over time, the longer that person deviates from what MN considers appropriate human behavior.

      One her often used limitations is to have humans who disobey her plan become more and more stupid, and more and more subhuman. Which I suggest to you is happening, and will continue to happen to all Israelis who live under the self invented delusion that you can create and have be viable a “Jewish State”.

      So I suggest that if all the enlightened Jewish and Arab, and other ethnicities who reside in Palestine (Israel, West Bank, or Gaza), just continue to discover more and more how they can live in accord with MN’s plans for their individual lives, that over time Zionists will become so stupid and so sub-human it will impossible for them to administrate a state in a way it can survive, at which point they will sue for peace, and finally Palestine can operate as MN intended all states to operate.

      Between now and then, treat all the inconveniences and suffering that occurs because of this immoral oppression as the cost of doing business in progress to a workable Palestine state. Sort of like all merchants with common sense treat the credit card fees they pay as the cost of doing business (instead of spending a lot of time moaning how they are ripped off by the credit card companies).

      Reply to Comment
    10. emet

      WARREN,
      thank you for your prophetic words. I like to continue to believe that human beings can and should change any sort of unjustice

      Reply to Comment
    11. Emet

      BOSKO,
      ….
      “During the 1970′s and in attempt to Arabise the registry office, it was forbidden to give Berber names to new-borns”
      So what do you think of this?
      ..
      It makes me think that can happen that somewhere and somewhen in the world somebody did something worse than what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and that this make you feel better.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Mikesailor

      How can one be a ‘good’ citizen when the terms of reference used ie. a ‘Jewish’ state, automatically place you in an inferior position if not disenfranchise you completely? As for Bosko living in Australia, was the Aussie treatment of the aboriginal inhabitants ever justified? Apparently even the Aussies think not. Then how do you justify the present day treatment of the Palestinians? That it’s not quite ‘as bad’?

      Reply to Comment
    13. Yo Mo

      the key concern regarding this piece is that the oppression of ethnic minorities is widespread in the middle east (and throughout the world) In a one state scenario jews would end up a minority – perhaps a large one in the one state, but a small minority in the region. Where should the jews derive the confidence that they would not end up being oppressed as are Kurds, Copts or Gays currently in the middle east. This seems not to be a 50/50 gamble but a gamble against the ods

      Reply to Comment
    14. Bosko

      Emet
      I am a very small cog in a very big wheel. So, how I feel does not come into it at all. The reason why I showed you how Arabs treated and still treat their minorities, is to show you why most Jews don’t want to be a minority under Arab rule again.
      .
      As for how Jews treat the Palestinian Arabs? They treat them much better than the Arabs treated Jews. Moreover, if the Arabs would not have resorted to terrorism, the Jews would treat Arabs even better. The two peoples have been in a 100 year war with each other a low intensity war which has not been the choice of the Jewish people. War stinks!!! What do you think?

      Reply to Comment
    15. Emet

      Bosko,
      What I think? I think that your simple propaganda deserves to be ignored.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Bosko

      Emet is a Hebrew name meaning “truth” isn’t it? Well then I have news for you. You don’t believe in truth. But then again, that isn’t news for you. You already know that, right, Emet?

      Reply to Comment
    17. Emet

      Bosko,
      the fact that so many people wrote you the same (simple propaganda) should be a warning for you.
      You continuously propose you basic statements and wants that people accept them as face value.
      Look at this: “The two peoples have been in a 100 year war with each other a low intensity war which has not been the choice of the Jewish people”.
      Do you realize how weak your position is?
      Just 2 mentions two quotations published few days ago on this site:

      A. Granott – leader of the JNF: “Land was bought [6% of the total] in those parts where there was danger of a political change in favour of the Arabs, or of their being wrenched from the body of the imminent state. Purchases were made precisely on distant frontiers to the east and the north, and Jewish boundaries in the Negev were expanded with much energy and persistence. The course of events subsequently completely justified these activities, which called for great exertion and accurate foresight. When the great day arrived, and the UN decided to establish a Jewish state, those who were responsible for defining its boundaries were impelled by realities to include the lands bought by the Jews, together with the settlements thereon. The frontiers of the new state which march in so curiously winding a fashion, were determined by the success of the Jews in creating faits accomplis. All those parts to which the Jewish settler had penetrated were included within the state, whereas those where they were not strong enough, or did non have time to plant stakes, remained for the most part”

      Theodor Herzl noted in his diaries in 1895 about the local population: “We should try to spirit the penniless Arab population across the borders by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”.
      Herzl, Theodor, Complete Diaries, The Herzl Press, New York, 1960, p. 88.
      —-
      Palestinians suffered a war impose on them by Zionism, Western world, and Arab States: they are the first victims and were even too patients. You want to steal their land (“EXPROPRIATE”, using an expression of the Zionism’s founder) and then complain because they dare to react: shamefull.

      p thank you for your explanation about my name: very deep

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        Emet’s quote discredited
        See below:

        THE QUOTE:
        “Theodor Herzl noted in his diaries in 1895 about the local population: “We should try to spirit the penniless Arab population across the borders by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”.
        Herzl, Theodor, Complete Diaries, The Herzl Press, New York, 1960, p. 88.”

        This was a deliberate misquote made up by that arch anti Zionist, Edward Said. Here is a reference which sets the record straight:

        “screetly and circumspectly.89
        Said finds this quotation so critical that he does not bother to quote Herzl otherwise—not from his published works or from his diary. Instead, what this ‘scholar’ lacks in evidence, he makes up by actually citing the same quotation twice: precisely the same quotation is used on page 13 and later on pages 70 – 71 (for good measure, the quotation is even referred to a third time on page 100).
        Yet this repeated quotation purposely leaves out critical sentences. The full quotation is as follows, with removed sentences in italics and the changed word in bold:

        June 12
        When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us.
        We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.

        The property-owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
        Let the owners of immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth.
        But we are not going to sell them anything back.90

        By removing the italicized sentences, Said takes what is clearly a class reference, and leads one to believe that Herzl is referring to all of Palestine’s native inhabitants. Still, most disingenuous of all is not that it is an incomplete quotation (without proper notation), but that he changes the key word of ‘try’ to ‘have’, suggesting that Herzl believed that it was impossible for a Jewish state to come to fruition without removing the native population. It is important to note that this is not a question of whose translation he used either—I quoted from the very same edition of the same translation.
        Yet, even if this quotation was unaltered, it is far from a quotation which could be considered historically representative of what Herzl believed. The proof lies in simply examining the journal entry immediately following the one quoted by Said (even written on the same day), which begins with sentiments much closer to Herzl’s typical thoughts on the subject:
        It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honour, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire old world a wonderful example.91
        Again, on the same day, Herzl writes:
        Estate owners who are attached to their soil because of old age, habit, etc. will be offered a complete transplantation—to any place they wish, like our own people. This offer will be made when all others have been rejected.
        If this offer is not accepted either, no harm will be done. Such close attachment to the soil is found only with small properties. Big ones are to be had for a price.
        Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas, we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.92
        But the transfer quotation chosen by Said shows none of this, and, indeed, it is clear that Said had to ignore actively these and other passages because they disproved precisely what he wanted his readers to believe.
        Moreover, Said’s choice is a quotation from 1895, in the first few months of Herzl’s journal and in the first year of Herzl’s ‘conversion’ to Zionism. To quote Herzl at this moment would be as fair as to claim that Herzl always believed in converting all Jewish children to Christianity, because in his very first journal entry, he discusses how two years previously he had proposed such a conversion scheme in order to solve the problem of anti-Semitism.93

        Here you can read about it more here:

        http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/said.pdf

        Reply to Comment
    18. Bosko

      Emet
      You are the one who has been falling for propaganda. And crude propaganda at that. Your example which mentions that Jews bought only 6% of the land it implies that Arabs owned 94% of the land, right Emet?
      .
      WRONG!!! They did not. To be sure, they [the Arabs] owned more than 6% of the land but NOWHRE near 94% of it because MOST OF THE LAND was crown land. Neither Arab nor Jew owned most of the land. Take the Negev for example, it represents 50% of Israel and nobody owned it. It was and still is wilderness, a desert. And there were other crown lands too that were owned by no one, get it, Emet, no one! The closest that those crown lands came to being owned was ownership first by the Ottomans then by the Brits. And after they left, the land had to be divided between the inhabitants who lived there. Arabs AND Jews, NOTJUST Arabs, get it Emet? The Jews too were entitled to part of the crown lands. Only Arabs would pretend otherwise and maybe some primitive compliant Jewish lackeys who are genetically pre-disposed to be compliant by 2000 years of oppression.
      .
      As for what Herzl said, who cares? He never even set foot in Israel and you don’t know what he meant by what he said. Bow do you know he wasn’t just saying that they would buy out the Arabs.
      .
      It is amusing how you people have the propensity to dig out very old quotes made by Jewish leaders but whan faced with much more hateful quotes made by Arab leaders against the Jewish people you just dismiss those statements. Propaganda, you say? You people have raised propaganda to an art form. People like me are in awe of your abilities as propagandists.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Bosko

      Emet:
      “p thank you for your explanation about my name: very deep”
      .
      You mean you didn’t know the meaning of your name? OK, you picked that name as a coincidence and you probably aren’t even Jewish are you?

      Reply to Comment
    20. Emet

      BOSKO,

      I decide to lose few minutes of my time in order to explain you this topic. But please, next time that you write about it don’t propose the same arguments. You look like a CD that plays always the same song. Don’t write again as if you don’t know. Now you know and you cannot be excused.
      ….
      In all the Ottoman Empire the Mulk land (private property) was just 5 percent of the total. This because the land DID BELONG to the community of believers. In other words they didn’t manage land tenure in a WESTERN WAY and no one can blame them for this. Like no one can blame them because they didn’t consider concepts such as STATE or CAPITAL as ways of self-representing their aspirations.
      ….
      The owners of the land were the people that did live on it. Or otherwise you should tell to every citizens that live in a former nation under the ottoman empire that they didn’t own their lands. So peraphs you can go there and steal also that ones.

      You cannot apply a colonialistic western approach in order to base your assumptions. Probably you grow up in an environment in which these miths are accepted. But this does not justifies your claims. As for the Naqab (this was the name used for thousands and thousands of years), once again you speak about topics that you don’ know. You do this because you try to justifies the dispossession of the Palestinians from their land: THIS IS IMMORAL.
      ….
      Study better the topic:
      “Bedouin society had a VERY CLEAR CONCEPT OF LAND OWNERSHIP, it was one of the most important things in their lives, and they regulated it among themselves. Also now, it still is among the most important things in their lives. They are very careful about land ownership as defined under their own legal system. They regard land as their property even when it was taken away from them decades ago, and they refuse to accept land belonging to other Bedouins even when the State of Israel offers them such land. The internal legal system of the Bedouins exists even today, in parallel with the laws of the State of Israel. All the more it existed during the Ottoman and British rule, when the government gave official recognition to the legal system of the Bedouin society.

      Rawash: But according to the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, these lands were considered as “Mawat “, “Dead Lands” which had no ownership.

      Yiftachel: This is the Israeli interpretation to the Ottoman Law, an interpretation formulated decades after the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. This was not the interpretation of the Ottoman Government itself gave to its own laws. As I mentioned, in 1858 the Ottoman Government did not exercise real power in the Negev and was in no position to enforce laws there. Decades later, around 1900, the Ottoman government began to maintain a real presence and control in the Negev. Notably in establishing the city of Be’er Sheva, where we are right now, as an administrative center of government in the Negev. But they were careful to respect the legal status of the Bedouin society and their land ownership rights. The Ottomans took care to purchase the land on which Be’er Sheva was established. When you buy land you thereby acknowledge the ownership rights of the seller from whom you bought it, and of the community to which the seller belongs.

      Rawash: Sultan Abdul Hamid II held extensive lands in the Negev under his personal ownership.
      ….
      Yiftachel: This exactly proves my point. Abdul Hamid II was a big land speculator. HE BOUGHT A LOT OF LAND – in fact, more in the north of the country than in the Negev. The point is that he bought the land. He respected the fact that the Bedouins were the owners and he had to pay them for it. It was an empire, he was the Sultan and he was not exactly a principled democrat. Still, it never occurred to him to just take the land from his Bedouin subjects and claim that they are not the real owners. Had he considered the land to be “Dead”, “Mawat”, under the law of 1858, that would have given him the right to take it without paying. But THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT what he did.
      http://toibillboard.info/court8_3.htm
      PS I probably speak Hebrew better than you; if I am Jew or not is none of your business.

      Reply to Comment
    21. Emet

      Bosko,
      “As for what Herzl said, who cares? He never even set foot in Israel and you don’t know what he meant by what he said. Bow do you know he wasn’t just saying that they would buy out the Arabs.”

      Do you know the impact that Herzl had on Zionism and on the strategies accomplished in Palestine?

      Do you know the meaning of the words “expropriation” and “removal” or you have some Western enlighted ways of interpreting them? (“..expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”).

      The real initial violence was the one suffered by the local majority.

      Reply to Comment
    22. Bosko

      Emet
      Ah, I get you now. Arabs lived on every inch of Palestine and they owned it. Even the Negev. But Jews who lived there had no right to own anything. You make it sound as clear as mud. And then there is this bit of yours …
      .
      EMET:
      “they didn’t consider concepts such as STATE or CAPITAL as ways of self-representing their aspirations”
      .
      Cool. So at least YOU admit that the Palestinian Arabs did not aspire to have a separate Palestinian state in 1947 because they had no concept of a STATE. They felt themselves to be part of the surrounding Arab neighbourhood. But only a few weeks ago, your fellow propagandists on this site were up in arms against me because I dared to suggest the very thing.
      .
      I guess your arguments don’t need to be consistent eh, Emet? You just mix and match it depending on the topic. One minute the Palestinian Arabs were unique the next minute not. Now you see it now you don’t. You are funny little magicians. I don’t know why I bother with you lot. You have no intellectual rigour. Your only asset is your fanaticism against Israel/Israelis. Cest lavie …
      .
      PS
      What do you think about this saying by the leader of the Palestinian Arabs?
      .
      “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
      – Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
      (Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger [American Jewish Committee, 2002], p47)”
      .
      I know, Emet, you think he was lenient, riiiiiiiight?

      Reply to Comment
    23. Mitchell Cohen

      Bosko, you know what they’ll say: “you don’t know Arabic, so you don’t really know what he is saying”, but the posters on this site who don’t speak a word of Hebrew know what all the Israeli leaders said/are saying.

      Reply to Comment
    24. Emet

      Bosko,
      as expected, you didn’t answer to my arguments.
      ..
      As for Hajj Amn, he was disgusting leader – imposed on the Palestinians – for whom they pay a big price. So what?
      ..
      As for the first part (“Arabs lived on every inch of Palestine…”) you are trying to push the argument to the extreme because you don’t know how to reply. In any case, answering to you question, the Yishuv did own the land no less and nor more than the local majority.

      As for State/Capital, you don’t even know the difference between nation and state. Or they perceived themselves in political terms or they didn’t exist: this part of your propaganda, right? Sorry but I don’t have further time to lose in order to explain it to you.

      The only important thing is that you don’t continue to write lies such as “neither Arab nor Jew owned most of the land”. Or, if you write it again, you have at least to be aware that you are ignoring basic aspects (in other words, that you are lying).

      Reply to Comment
    25. Emet

      Mitchell,
      Although I don’t agree with what “they” claim, I speak both Hebrew and Arabic. Better the first one than the second one. So I should be safe

      Reply to Comment
    26. Mitchell Cohen

      Emet, I am all in favor of switching this forum/site to עברית but I suppose the traffic would be significantly reduced.

      Reply to Comment
    27. Bosko

      EMET:
      “they didn’t exist: this part of your propaganda, right? Sorry but I don’t have further time to lose in order to explain it to you”
      .
      Here you go again. Where did I say they didn’t exist? Eh Emet? Show me please. I said, they perceived themselves as Arabs first. That was in 1947.
      In fact, since you are so much into what leaders say, this is what the first leader of the PLO said:
      .
      “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing more than southern Syria” — Ahmed Shukeiry, head of the PLO, to UN Security Council, May 31, 1956″
      .
      What do you think Emet? Are you confused by your own logic yet?
      .
      PS
      I’ll say it again, like I said before to your cronies. Clearly TODAY, as opposed to 1947, the Palestinians see themselves as a distinct nation (whatever their motives and reasons are). So clearly they have the right to demand self determination. But in 1947, it is debatable whether they saw themselves the same way. Surely I am right, Emet, No? I mean an important leader of theirs said it even in 1956 and you believe important leaders, don’t you? (in case you don’t get it, I am mocking you with your own logic) 🙂

      Reply to Comment
    28. Bosko

      Mitchell
      I fluctuate between amusement and exasperation when I end up talking to people like Emet. They want to appear to be more Catholic than the Pope by bringing up every two bit anti Israel propaganda that they can get their little hands on. I came across much more reasonable Arab posters on other forums with whom at least I could have a polite and intelligent discussion even if we disagreed. But our Emet here wants to be more anti Israel than some of the more enlightened Arabs are.

      Reply to Comment
    29. Emet

      BOSKO,

      I bring arguments, to which you don’t reply. You try to make extreme my arguments because you feel weak. You try to put me in a “box” (“Are you Jewish?”, “Emet…want to appear to be more Catholic than the Pope..”..ect..) because in this way it seems to you easier to cope with a person that knows the topic more than you do. Now you are trying to play the card of the “anti-Israeli”. Sorry, you are again wrong. I am not anti-Israeli at all.
      Let’s try with the last card. Ask me if I am Muslim, or an antisemite, or an ultraortodox, so that peraphs you can better ignore my arguments

      I don’t even answer about your claims about the palestinian identity in 1947 because already many people before me tried to explain the concept to you. You look deaf. You continue to propose every time the same arguments in every article.

      I stop here because as many others noticed to speak with you is like to address a wall. I just paste and copy my previous post, the one to which you were not able to reply:
      In all the Ottoman Empire the Mulk land (private property) was just 5 percent of the total. This because the land DID BELONG to the community of believers. In other words they didn’t manage land tenure in a WESTERN WAY and no one can blame them for this. Like no one can blame them because they didn’t consider concepts such as STATE or CAPITAL as ways of self-representing their aspirations.
      ….
      The owners of the land were the people that did live on it. Or otherwise you should tell to every citizens that live in a former nation under the ottoman empire that they didn’t own their lands. So peraphs you can go there and steal also that ones.

      You cannot apply a colonialistic western approach in order to base your assumptions. Probably you grow up in an environment in which these miths are accepted. But this does not justifies your claims. As for the Naqab (this was the name used for thousands and thousands of years), once again you speak about topics that you don’ know. You do this because you try to justifies the dispossession of the Palestinians from their land: THIS IS IMMORAL.
      ….
      Study better the topic:
      “Bedouin society had a VERY CLEAR CONCEPT OF LAND OWNERSHIP, it was one of the most important things in their lives, and they regulated it among themselves. Also now, it still is among the most important things in their lives. They are very careful about land ownership as defined under their own legal system. They regard land as their property even when it was taken away from them decades ago, and they refuse to accept land belonging to other Bedouins even when the State of Israel offers them such land. The internal legal system of the Bedouins exists even today, in parallel with the laws of the State of Israel. All the more it existed during the Ottoman and British rule, when the government gave official recognition to the legal system of the Bedouin society.

      Rawash: But according to the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, these lands were considered as “Mawat “, “Dead Lands” which had no ownership.

      Yiftachel: This is the Israeli interpretation to the Ottoman Law, an interpretation formulated decades after the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. This was not the interpretation of the Ottoman Government itself gave to its own laws. As I mentioned, in 1858 the Ottoman Government did not exercise real power in the Negev and was in no position to enforce laws there. Decades later, around 1900, the Ottoman government began to maintain a real presence and control in the Negev. Notably in establishing the city of Be’er Sheva, where we are right now, as an administrative center of government in the Negev. But they were careful to respect the legal status of the Bedouin society and their land ownership rights. The Ottomans took care to purchase the land on which Be’er Sheva was established. When you buy land you thereby acknowledge the ownership rights of the seller from whom you bought it, and of the community to which the seller belongs.

      Rawash: Sultan Abdul Hamid II held extensive lands in the Negev under his personal ownership.
      ….
      Yiftachel: This exactly proves my point. Abdul Hamid II was a big land speculator. HE BOUGHT A LOT OF LAND – in fact, more in the north of the country than in the Negev. The point is that he bought the land. He respected the fact that the Bedouins were the owners and he had to pay them for it. It was an empire, he was the Sultan and he was not exactly a principled democrat. Still, it never occurred to him to just take the land from his Bedouin subjects and claim that they are not the real owners. Had he considered the land to be “Dead”, “Mawat”, under the law of 1858, that would have given him the right to take it without paying. But THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT what he did.
      http://toibillboard.info/court8_3.htm

      Reply to Comment
    30. Bosko

      Emet
      You are using lots of words to say very little. Why don’t you cut to the chase? Tell me, the poor ignorant soul that I am, how much of the land that Israel is today, within the green line, belonged to the Arabs? Give it to me in percentage term. And no double talk please (seeing that you called me a propagandist, I don’t feel guilty about talking to you in a like minded way).
      .
      Oh, and you didn’t respond to me about what Ahmed Shukeiry said about Palestine. I must say, I am surprised because you seemed to give a great weight to what Herzl said. Or are you in the business of quoting what you think are negative quotes by Jewish leaders but not by Arab leaders?

      Reply to Comment
    31. Emet

      Bosko,
      sorry I don’t have time to lose. You already received very clear explanations about “Shukeiry style sentences” in the past. But you have a wall in your mind and even if I explain everything again you will write the same sentence in a couple of weeks. The same will happen about land tenure: I could bet about it.

      “During the war [Prima guerra mondiale], Arab nationalists cooperated with Sharif Hussein and his sons in order to have an Arab kingdom. The Palestinians, who were part of this ideology, thought at that time, tactically, that it would be in their interest to be part of the Faisal kingdom in the Bilad al-Sham. That’s why it is the only two years [1918-1920] during which they speak about Palestine as Southern Syria or the kingdom of Faisal. After Faisal is kicked out of Damascus, the next conference doesn’t speak about being part of Syria or the kingdom of Feisal. In the summer of 1920 the episode is finished.”
      ….
      ….
      “For advocates of Jordan-is-Palestine, such claims suggest Arab agreement that Palestine and Jordan are identical. But this interpretation distorts the real character of these remarks, which are not disinterested analyses but propaganda ploys and declarations of hostile intent. Minimally, they establish diplomatic positions within inter-Arab arena. Maximally, they assert rights to expand and rule other regions; the PLO hopes to stake out a claim to territory it does not control; Amman seeks to protect territories it either controls or hopes one day to control again (the West Bank).

      Palestinians cast an occasional covetous glance toward the hinterland; this helps explain in part the Jordanian-PLO war of 1970. Their periodic claims to Husayn’s kingdom also reflect an intent to bring down the Hashemites as a aid to conquering Palestine. For their part, Jordanians have cast frequent envious glances at the coastline; ‘Abdallah spent long years plotting to establish a presence on the West Bank and his grandson Husayn, while more subtle and less driven, has also devoted many efforts to this end.

      Whenever Husayn declared that “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,” he had at least three purposes. First, as Asher Susser observes, it was his way of asserting that “Jordan deserves to play a central and decisive role in the determination of the political fate of the Palestinians.” Second, the king’s remarks were aimed toward Palestinians under Israeli occupation, where the Hashemite-PLO battle for Palestinian favor rages hardest. Third, Hashemite statements have to be seen in the light of efforts to integrate and manage east bank Palestinians. The many Palestinians on the east bank, estimated between 40 and 70 percent of the total population, compelled the king to demonstrate his commitment to the Palestine issue. These considerations explain why for forty years Amman rhetorically adopted Palestinian aspirations.

      The king’s dramatic but as yet partial cutting of ties with Palestine in July suggests that he now worries less about internal stability than about the dangers created by the West Bank imbroglio. Too, Jordan’s recent disavowal of claims to sovereignty on the West Bank is a tactical twist that brings to mind similar declamations in the 1974-75 period. Husayn says he is deferring to the PLO; actually, he hopes to divide and destroy and then return. The nature of his conflict with the PLO remains unchanged.

      Those who argue that Jordan-is-Palestine have been quick to dismiss Husayn’s sincerity in order to protect their argument. However correct about Husayn, the general argument remains invalid, for it rips quotes to the effect that Palestine equals Jordan out of context. Just because Arab leaders have said so from time to time does not make this true.”

      Reply to Comment
    32. Bosko

      EMET:
      “sorry I don’t have time to lose”
      .
      Sure you do. Just look at your long convoluted posts which say nothing but talk about the convoluted politics of the PLO and Jordan. But you don’t have time to answer my simple question. Here I restate it again:
      .
      how much of the land that Israel is on today, within the green line, belonged to the Arabs? Give it to me in percentage terms.
      .
      Is this question too hard for you Emet?

      Reply to Comment
    33. Bosko

      @EMET
      The way I understand your long convoluted answer to my question about what Ahmed Shukeiry said is that you dismiss it. You say his statement is meaningless because it’s just Arab rivalry and politics.
      .
      OK, can I play the same game with what Herzl said? Can I just say that it was just politics? Can I say that his suggestion meant that he thought that in exchange for money, the Arabs would be willing to go across the border? And that he was just playing politics against rivals, to dismiss their concerns, when he made that suggestion?

      Reply to Comment
    34. emet

      Bosko,
      1) I confirm that I don’t have to lose: I pasted and copy an article because, after how I have seen that you dealt with the land tenure issue, I realized that I am speaking with a wall.
      2) “Is this question too hard for you Emet? “. It is not too hard, it is too basic. The Land Code of 1858, somehow imposed by the Western Powers in the context of the Tanzimat, was the first decree in the history of the Ottoman that forced people to register their land. This in any case happened in very small percentage and only some years later.
      Generally speaking the land of Palestine belonged to the Palestinians and the little minorities that were on the spot no less and no more than the land of Yemen or Romania belonged to the Yemenites and the Roumanians people.
      Put away your Western colonialistic approach and it would be clear to you.
      3)
      “..Ahmed Shukeiry said is that you dismiss it. You say his statement is meaningless because it’s just Arab rivalry and politics.”
      “I” said that “the general argument remains invalid, for it rips quotes to the effect that Palestine equals Jordan OUT OF CONTEXT. Just because Arab leaders have said so from time to time does not make this true.”
      http://www.danielpipes.org/298/is-jordan-palestine

      Reply to Comment
    35. Bosko

      EMET:
      “I realized that I am speaking with a wall”
      .
      Funny, I feel the same about you. Except that I don’t liken you to a wall.I liken you to a verbose record player who obfuscates, sows misinformation with the hope of causing as much confusion as possible.
      .
      EMET:
      2) “Is this question too hard for you Emet? “. It is not too hard, it is too basic. The Land Code of 1858 … ”
      .
      See what I mean Emet? I asked you a simple question after you claimed that the Jews started the war withthe Arabs because they stole Arab lands. I asked you to tell me what percentage of the land that the UN earmarked for the Jewish state was Arab owned? Did you answer me? No! You just spewed a lot more words without answering my question.
      .
      EMET:
      ““I” said that “the general argument remains invalid, for it rips quotes to the effect that Palestine equals Jordan OUT OF CONTEXT. Just because Arab leaders have said so from time to time does not make this true.”
      .
      Really? But Ahmed Shukeiry was an IMPORTANT Palestinian Arab leader. Isn’t that what you said about Herzl when I gave a similar response to you about what he said? How come you are not willing to treat both statements the same way? Oh and Sheik Amin Al Husseini’s statement too. He was an important Palestinian leader too who said that all Jews should be butchered. I am afraid that just your condemnation of him does NOT negate what he said. Can’t you see your own double standards about how you deal with the statements of Jewish leaders as opposed to Arab leaders?

      Reply to Comment
    36. Emet

      Bosko,
      “I asked you to tell me what percentage of the land that the UN earmarked for the Jewish state was Arab owned? Did you answer me? No! You just spewed a lot more words without answering my question.”
      To ask the “exact percentage” is a stupid (if you prefer “Westerncentric”) question as it would be a stupid question to ask to a Romanian or a Yemenite of the last part of the XIX century the exact percent of land that they owned. The system was not a Western one: THE LAND DID BELONG to – or, if you prefer, was at disposal of – the COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS. I hope that one day you will get it.

      I was sure about your answer concerning Herzl.
      1) Herzl was speaking about the will to expell an indigenous population. His ideas were the ideas of most of the zionists of the time. He was not dealing about issues such as “are we more ashkenazi or sefardi?”, “should we build a state in Congo or on the moon?”, “we are the Jewish people or the Israelite people?”: he was speaking about the fact that “Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”.
      ..
      Herzl was the LEADING figure and the FOUNDER of mainstream ZIONISM.
      2) Even if you put the words of Herzl in context is easy to understand that “expropriation and the removal” are concepts that cannot be misunderstood.
      3) Shukeiry was speaking like that because he had a political interest on the other side of the Jordan, as the article of Pipes explains quite well. Herzl had the only interest to expell the local population in order to create a Jewish state on their land
      4) Hajj Amin was a shameful leader (as I wrote you, imposed by the british). So what? I never said that the Palestinian/Arab leaders were not bad. It is true in case the opposite. If the Palestinians would have had good leaders no one would have had the chance to steal their land.
      ….
      What I am saying from the first post is that the INITIAL VIOLENCE came from the attempt to dispossess the indigenous population: this DOES NOT imply/mean/suggest/claim…ect (is it clear?) that the Palestinian leadership that came up in the following decades was a good and enlighted one. Not at all.

      Reply to Comment
    37. Bosko

      @Emet
      What about what Sheik Amin Al Husseini said about the Jews in 1944? He said that all the Jews should be butchered. And he was the leader of the Palestinian Arabs. So what he said, meant that’s what the Palestinian Arabs would have done to the Jews if the Jews would have let them. In fact they DID massacre Jews in Hebron, in Jerusalem in 1929 and during the Arab revolt of the 1930s, because of this man’s incitement.
      .
      As for Herzl, the way I read what he said is that his way of making room for Jews was to pay the Arab population in exchange for moving across the border. You might not like that but it still is not as bad as what Haj Amin Al Husseini stood for.

      Reply to Comment
    38. Bosko

      EMET:
      “To ask the “exact percentage” is a stupid (if you prefer “Westerncentric”) question”
      .
      Why is it stupid? You are the one who said that the Jews were the one’s who started the war by being there (isn’t that what you said?). You claimed that the Jews only owned 6% of the land. Your implication was that the Arabs owned the other 94%. I challenged you on that by pointing out that most of the land was crown land which belonged to the state and therefore, after the Brits left, that land had to be divided between the Jews and the Arabs who lived there (and they both lived there in 1947 – Jews too).
      .
      But you are telling me that isn’t so because somehow the Arabs owned even the crown lands. I mentioned the Negev desert and asked you how could the Arabs own the desert and you just ducked, weaved and dodged the answer.
      .
      Again, I asked you a simple question. You claim that all or some of what the UN allocated to Israel in 1947 was Arab land. I ask you, how much of it was Arab land? At the least, if someone claims that something was taken away from someone else, they should be able to specify the exact amount that was taken away. If they can’t then their claim is just double talk.

      Reply to Comment
    39. Emet

      Bosko,
      It is stupid (if you prefer “Westerncentric”) because the 6% bought by the Zionists was in fact bought by Western people and Western organizations, in a framework, the Land Code and the Tanzimat, created or imposed by Western Powers.
      So you are asking a “Western question” in a “non-Western environment”. Is like to say that Palestine did not exist because was not a State. Also in this case we would be in front of a a “Western sentence” in a “non-Western environment”.
      ..
      About the Naqab/Negev I didn’t “dodge and weave”. I provided very clearcut arguments, that you simply ignored. Here they are again:

      “Bedouin society had a VERY CLEAR CONCEPT OF LAND OWNERSHIP, it was one of the most important things in their lives, and they regulated it among themselves. Also now, it still is among the most important things in their lives. They are very careful about land ownership as defined under their own legal system. They regard land as their property even when it was taken away from them decades ago, and they refuse to accept land belonging to other Bedouins even when the State of Israel offers them such land. The internal legal system of the Bedouins exists even today, in parallel with the laws of the State of Israel. All the more it existed during the Ottoman and British rule, when the government gave official recognition to the legal system of the Bedouin society.

      Rawash: But according to the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, these lands were considered as “Mawat “, “Dead Lands” which had no ownership.

      Yiftachel: This is the Israeli interpretation to the Ottoman Law, an interpretation formulated decades after the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. This was not the interpretation of the Ottoman Government itself gave to its own laws. As I mentioned, in 1858 the Ottoman Government did not exercise real power in the Negev and was in no position to enforce laws there. Decades later, around 1900, the Ottoman government began to maintain a real presence and control in the Negev. Notably in establishing the city of Be’er Sheva, where we are right now, as an administrative center of government in the Negev. But they were careful to respect the legal status of the Bedouin society and their land ownership rights. The Ottomans took care to purchase the land on which Be’er Sheva was established. When you buy land you thereby acknowledge the ownership rights of the seller from whom you bought it, and of the community to which the seller belongs.

      Rawash: Sultan Abdul Hamid II held extensive lands in the Negev under his personal ownership.
      ….
      Yiftachel: This exactly proves my point. Abdul Hamid II was a big land speculator. HE BOUGHT A LOT OF LAND – in fact, more in the north of the country than in the Negev. The point is that he bought the land. He respected the fact that the Bedouins were the owners and he had to pay them for it. It was an empire, he was the Sultan and he was not exactly a principled democrat. Still, it never occurred to him to just take the land from his Bedouin subjects and claim that they are not the real owners. Had he considered the land to be “Dead”, “Mawat”, under the law of 1858, that would have given him the right to take it without paying. But THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT what he did.
      http://toibillboard.info/court8_3.htm

      Reply to Comment
    40. Bosko

      @Emet
      They had a very clear concept of land ownership? Reading your convoluted story it apparently worked like this:
      .
      They roamed the Negev desert, they did not settle anywhere, they were nomadic and they survived using what they could find. They were few in numbers (the Beduin) and the Negev was very big. So by your definition, if they own the Negev desert, then they own the Sinai desert too instead of Egypt owning it. They also own the Iraki and the Saudi deserts too because Beduin roam there too. But do they? It seems not, because nobody disputes Egyptian, Saudi and Iraki ownership of their deserts. Only when it comes to Israel, do people like you dispute Israeli ownership.
      .
      But that’s not all. The Negev is only 50% of what was allocated for Israel by the UN. Of the remaining 50%, the Jews owned the 6% that they bought. The rest was Arab plus crown land. I ask you again, what was the percentage that was Arab land? If you don’t know then you cannot claim that it was stolen land. After all, what makes land ownership? I say one or more of the following:
      .
      1. A title deed
      2. Living on the land
      3. Making use of the land (cultivating it)
      4. Sovereignity by a country
      .
      If the Arabs could not point to ANY of the above, then they did not own those lands that we are talking about. At least not more so than the Jews who also lived in Palestine.

      Reply to Comment
    41. Bosko

      Correction. The 6% that the Jews bought was 6% of total Palestine. So it was more than 6% of what was allocated to the Jewish state. It was closer to 12% (55% of Palestine was allocated to the Jewish state).
      .
      The Negev Desert was more than 50% of what was allocated to the Jewish state. So that leaves 50% – 12% = 38% which was crown land + Arab owned land. So I ask you again, Emet, how much of that 38% was actually Arab owned by the definition that I gave you above?

      Reply to Comment
    42. Emet

      Bosko,
      “Living on the land” is the answer. They were more than the 90% of the total population throughout most of the XIX century, at least before than the Alyiot. They were the indigenous population in Palestine as well in the framework of Bilad as-Sham.

      “Only when it comes to Israel, do people like you dispute Israeli ownership.” Is it peraphs because Israel is the only, or one of the very few countries, in the world that tries to find every possible means in order to dispossess the remaining population that it didn’t succed to expell in 1948?
      ..
      I don’t even enter in your calculation. The Palestinians were just 30 years before around the 9/10th of the total population and got from the 48 partition the 42 percent of the total land (Jerusalem area=”international area”): that’s the real UNJUSTICE.
      All your strange calculation just tries to cover this unjustice.

      Reply to Comment
    43. Michael W.

      Bosko and Emet, you are clogging this thread and diverting from the specifics of the article. It seems to me that these arguments always divert back to the principle issues of 1948. No matter how many times you go over this, you are never going to reach the extremist on the other side.

      Reply to Comment
    44. Bosko

      Michael
      You are right but Emet is the one who insisted on going down this path by referring to an obscure quote that Herzl made maybe 100 years ago. And I will be damned if I will let him get away with his story. He and his ilk constantly try to subvert history by blaming Israel for everything and all the world’s ills. Being a student of history, I know where that leads to if we leave those stories unchallenged.
      .
      EMET
      The Arabs lived on the land. I don’t dispute that. But Jews too lived on that land. Neither Jew nor Arab lived on ALL of the land. So the land that was not lived on and which had no private title deed was crown land. And that crown land belonged to BOTH Jews AND Arabs. Not just to the Arabs. It is a simple idea, I don’t see why you can’t digest it.

      Reply to Comment
    45. Bosko

      EMET:
      “All your strange calculation just tries to cover this unjustice”
      .
      Yea, “my injustice” (NOT!!!). In 1947, the precentage of the Jewish population of Palestine was 33%. they got 55% of Palestine (I won’t even mention historic Palestine). But let’s see what that 55% consisted of:
      .
      1. More than 50% of the 55% was the Negev desert which was mostly uninhabitable. So that left about 28% of the that was inhabitable. Which bit of that was therefore unjust?
      .
      2. And that 28% was not earmarked only for Jews because the land that was allocated to the Jews had Arabs living there too. Some of those Arabs are now Israeli citizens. The rest fled because of the war that the Arabs started. Sure, Israel was to blame for some of that flight but no respected historian claims that Israel was the ONLY party to blame. Both parties sere to blame and there were Jewish refugees too.

      Reply to Comment
    46. Bosko

      Bosko,
      putting aside the fact that for me Israel has all the right to exist and to prosper, the real injustice is not that 1/3 of the population (that just 4 decades before represented the 1/10 of the total population) got the 56.47% of the land. Also because this 56.47%, along with the Naqab (where the Jews represented at the time 1/100 of the local population, included also almost all the coastal plan and the only important harbour.
      ..
      The real INJUSTICE is that the 2/3 of the population, the same population that just 4 decades earlier represented about 8-9/10 of the total inhabitants, got the 42% of the total land. I hope that you are ready to acknowledge at least this, although I doubt it: You never mentioned even once that 2/3 of the local population, exactly like the British mandate addressed the 9/10 of the local population just as “Non-Jewish population”.
      ..
      Half of the population of the planned Jewish state was composed by Palestinians: there is nothing magnanimous in the fact that a small minority of them (in proportion with the natural grow) has today an Israeli citizenship.
      Israel is for sure not the only part to blame for the problem of the palestinian refugees. But the Palestinians are for sure the real victims of plans and aspirations for which they paid a price that no people in the world should be obliged to pay. The majority of the Palestinians were expelled and the ones that just left their houses – because afraid of the war – had the FULL RIGHT to go back in their homes: something that Israel, immorally, prevented. The Jewish refugees took in most of the cases the houses of the Palestinians, although the Palestinians didn’t bear any responsability whatsover for any possible expulsion happened in other parts of the world.

      Reply to Comment
    47. Emet

      Bosko,
      putting aside the fact that for me Israel has all the right to exist and to prosper, the real injustice is not that 1/3 of the population (that just 4 decades before represented the 1/10 of the total population) got the 56.47% of the land. Also because this 56.47%, along with the Naqab (where the Jews represented at the time 1/100 of the local population, included also almost all the coastal plan and the only important harbour.
      ..
      The real INJUSTICE is that the 2/3 of the population, the same population that just 4 decades earlier represented about 8-9/10 of the total inhabitants, got the 42% of the total land. I hope that you are ready to acknowledge at least this, although I doubt it: You never mentioned even once that 2/3 of the local population, exactly like the British mandate addressed the 9/10 of the local population just as “Non-Jewish population”.
      ..
      Half of the population of the planned Jewish state was composed by Palestinians: there is nothing magnanimous in the fact that a small minority of them (in proportion with the natural grow) has today an Israeli citizenship.
      Israel is for sure not the only part to blame for the problem of the palestinian refugees. But the Palestinians are for sure the real victims of plans and aspirations for which they paid a price that no people in the world should be obliged to pay. The majority of the Palestinians were expelled and the ones that just left their houses – because afraid of the war – had the FULL RIGHT to go back in their homes: something that Israel, immorally, prevented. The Jewish refugees took in most of the cases the houses of the Palestinians, although the Palestinians didn’t bear any responsability whatsover for any possible expulsion happened in other parts of the world.

      Reply to Comment
    48. Emet

      Bosko2,
      “…but Emet is the one who insisted on going down this path by referring to an obscure quote that Herzl made maybe 100 years ago…Being a student of history, I know where that leads to if we leave those stories unchallenged.”
      I mentioned Herzl in a bigger context. To claim that Herzl was THE only argument of what I have written is superficial.
      ….
      “The Arabs lived on the land. I don’t dispute that. But Jews too lived on that land. Neither Jew nor Arab lived on ALL of the land. So the land that was not lived on and which had no private title deed was crown land. And that crown land belonged to BOTH Jews AND Arabs. Not just to the Arabs. It is a simple idea, I don’t see why you can’t digest it.”

      The Palestinians didn’t “live on the land”: they were the 9/10 of the indigenous population. To put on the same foot this almost absolute majority with a very tiny minority is historically and morally flawed (so to imply that Palestinians and Jews owned fifty-fifty the land is flawed). The Miri land “belonged” also to the little minority of the Yishuv (although in legal ottoman terms this is uncorrect), but for sure not at all to the immigrants from the OTHER continents (at least not as such in comparison to the local population) that arrived in the following decades. It is a basic assumption universally accepted in every context, I don’t see why you can’t digest it.
      ..
      That a Jew stacked in the traffic jam of New York can tell to an indigenous Palestinian that the land on which he lives is also his land for what is mentioned in the Bible in relation to 3000 years ago is not acceptable.

      Reply to Comment
    49. Bosko

      Nice touch Emet but oh no you don’t Emet. True, there were as many Jews who became refugees from Arab countries as there were Palestinian refugees. But those two groups were not the only refugees. There were Jewish refugees from East Jerusalem and from places like Gush Etzion too. They were forced to flee from the combined forces of the Arab Legion and Palestinian Arab irregular forces. Don’t forget them either Emet.
      .
      Also, don’t forget who started the war. The Palestinian Arabs did after they heard the UN vote for two state solution, they rioted, went on a rampage and murdered quite a few Jews who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. In the war that ensued, they literally threatened to drive the Jews into the sea (yes, their leaders ised those very words). Moreover, 1% of the Jewish population died in that war. To put it into perspective, for a country like the US the death of 1% of their population would amount to 4 million people. And you are telling me that the only victims were the Palestinian Arabs? And that they were lilly white innocents but the Jews were the villains? What planet are you people from???!!!!
      .
      Now, since you are labouring the “unfairness” bit about the UN partition, I will persist with it too:
      .
      The Jews were allocated 55% of the land (without counting all of historical Palestine). Only about half of that was habitable, in other words 28% of total Palestine. The Jews were about 33% of the population, and the new Jewish state was scheduled to have had nearly as many Arabs as Jews. In other words, nearly two thirds of the entire population of Palestine were allocated abot 55% of Palestine of which only half (28%) was hospitable land. But you are saying that the Jewish state had the better deal?
      .
      By the way, have you had a look at the map lately? Because of the ensuing series of wars which the Arabs provoked, Israel acquired additional lands. But even with those additional lands, the maps shows Israel as miniscule in area compared to the surrounding Arab countries. So are you telling me that the Arab peoples are land poor and that Israel has made them land poor? Are you telling me that there is no room in the Middle East for a 23rd Arab state called Palestine? That is if they want a state of their own rather than just Israel’s destruction. C’mon Emet, pull the other leg. Not all Jewish people are stupid. Only some of us are (unfortunately). The rest of us know the score we know what this war is all about, the Arabs are pulling out all stops to win this war. They steadfastly refuse to accept the presence of Jews in the Jewish ancestral homeland.

      Reply to Comment
    50. Emet

      Bosko,
      You are full of propaganda that I don’t even know from where to start.
      1) I already told that you that the Palestinians don’t bear any responsability for the Jews that were expelled or that decided to move to Israel. On the contrary, their houses were stolen by that very same people.
      2) Sorry, I forgot the 237 Jews that became “refugees” in Israel in 1948. In comparison to 800,000 Palestinians they don’t look so many. Especially because, on the contrary of the Palestinians, they went to inhabit the Palestinian houses of Lifta, Al-Malha…ect…ect..
      3) The Palestinians didn’t start any war exactly as no one asked them to accept or refuse any partition. The Palestinians were simply too patient: no one would have had so patient once that you realize that somebody is trying to steal the land in which you and your epigones lived, in other word once that the dream of Herzl was close to become true (..”the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”).
      4) “1% of the Jewish population died in that war. To put it into perspective, for a country like the US the death of 1%”.
      This another of the typical propaganda style argument. To put in perspective, yesterday in the Vatican City was killed 1 person: it has been a GENOCIDE!!:-)
      5) The best of the land was the coastal plan and not the hills that the Palestinians got. Moreover the Naqab, that can garantee the only access to the Red Sea (not a secondary aspect if also the coastal plan is not yours anymore), was not impossible to inhabit (as today we can see) or to exploit: it just needed an enormous amount of money that the local population could not afford: damn on them:-)
      It does not matter how you try to twist the datas: the population that 4 decades earlier represented the 9/10 of the total population got the 42% of the total land. The fact that “the new Jewish state was scheduled to have had nearly as many Arabs as Jews” does not mean that it was a magnanimous offer: it means that the Palestinian were forced to be part of a new created State, while the Palestinian State was almost entirely composed by Palestinians. The fact is they simple didn’t have enough people to complete the colonization of the land. But thanks God the expulsions from the Arab States gave an “unexpected” (?) help in that respect: “If I [Ben Gurion] knew it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transporting them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” (“Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: from Peace to War (1985, p. 66).
      6) Most of these terrible “Arabs” don’t refuse to accept the presence of Jews in the Jewish ancestral homeland”. They just refuse to have person that, like you, try to erase their identity, justify their dispossession, claim their lack of attachment to their land…ect.ect…ect.
      If you ask for respect, first you have to respect the other. Especially if you are the last arrived on the spot.

      Reply to Comment
    51. Click here to load previous comments