Did the Zionists "steal" anybody's land?

[Aliyah1995]

Most people reading this thread on the forum might be thinking "duh!!!!", but sometimes we really do need to go back to basics.

One of the central claims by Israel's adversaries to the Israel/Arab conflict is that the Zionists stole Palestinian land. This is also one of the claims that the masses fall for. However, facts and history is NOT on the side of those making this claim.

Let us forget about the fact that there were Jews living in Mandatory Palestine for centuries and that Jerusalem already had a majority Jewish population by the middle of the 19th century, when surveys began being taken. Let us forget about the fact that during the period of Mandatory Palestine, ANY resident of this region, be they Arab, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Bohemian, was considered a "Palestinian". Also, let us forget, for just a moment, that many times the Zionist pioneers "bought" land from Arabs, who voluntarily sold it. Not to belittle the above details, but they are beside the point. What matters is the following:

Yes, it is true that when the Zionist pioneers came to settle what was then called "Mandatory Palestine", which was occupied first by the Ottoman Turks and then by the British, that the land was not totally empty. There were indeed Arabs (but not only, there were Jews as well) who were living in this region. However, here is the thing:

The Arabs were dwelling in small villages that were scattered and dotted the land between Jordan and the Mediterranean. There was no sovereign "Palestine". There was no sovereign anything. NOBODY "owned" the land which stretched for tens of miles, in some cases even hundreds of miles, between each village.

The Arabs only "owned" the land that each respective village was on, but nothing more. When the Zionist pioneers came to settle Mandatory Palestine, they did not go dafka to where the Arab villages were and kick the Arabs out of their villages. On the contrary, they went to the barren, often swampy land, that NOBODY wanted and developed it. They drained the swamps, in many cases died from malaria and other diseases, and made the land blossom. So, no Arabs were "kicked off" their land as a result of the Zionist pioneers.

Of course, when the partition plan was offered, there was contention about who would get what and there were Arab villages that would have fallen within the Jewish state. The Arabs of those particular villages basically had two choices- accept being a minority within the Jewish state or move to the new Arab state next door. This was unacceptable to them, as well as the Arab world in general, and the rest is history.

Where there Arab refugees as a result of the War of Independence? Absolutely.

Would the partition plan have been perfect for the Arabs or the Jews? Definitely not.

Was it the best plan that was available given the circumstances?
Yes.

However, the Zionist pioneers did not "steal" anybody's land. The land between the Arab villages, that dotted Mandatory Palestine, belonged to NOBODY, as NO sovereign entity had a claim to it, certainly no sovereign "Palestine".

[curlyg]

It is also worth remembering that this idea that the Arabs had lived in all of "Palestine" for hundreds, if not thousands, of years is a myth borne of modern romantic nationalism and is a highly anachronistic interpretation of history. The explosion of population growth in the Middle East rougly coincided with the beginnings of the Zionist movement. Previously, what existed in Palestine/Israel were small villages on small plots of land, not the kind of huge sprawling cities we see today. It follows that much of the land was literally empty, without an Arab present - ancient or otherwise.

In 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.[45]

By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including bedouin).

[wat0n]

I think we have to separate 2 kinds of "ownership" (IMHO the second one is not ownership in a strict sense of the word):

1) Ownership by individuals: By 1947 most of the land in the Mandate was owned by Arab persons. On the other hand, the land owned by Jewish persons was acquired by legal means (i.e. the land was either bought from individuals, the state or wasn't owned by anyone and thus they had the right to just settle there).

2) Ownership by the colective: By this I mean wether any of the peoples could claim the right to excercise self-determination in the territory of the Mandate.

I think that, as far as Jews are concerned, given that there had been Jewish/Hebrew independent states in the area in the past, that such states ended by force and that Jews were also forcibly removed by the Romans, Jews have a valid claim on the land. DNA tests also prove that Ashkenazim and Sephardim are related, and that both have Middle Eastern origin.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs can claim that they also have right to the land because they aren't guilty of whatever the Romans did to our nation, there had been Arab domain over the territory and they had lived there as Arabs (culturally) since then and while there had never been a Palestinian state that was because they were conquered by other nations, and they can also prove they have semitic DNA (kind of obvious considering the Arabs are considered as semitic, also some of them are descendants of the Samaritans, which may be a clearer point).

As far as the above paragraphs go, as I said, both sides have rights to the land - and if they can't live together in the same state (and they can't) then the land should be divided (and it was [to be] divided back in 1947).

Now, obviously, the whole claim has its origin on the Nakba (I use this word because it was, objectively, a human drama for the Arabs, at least as individuals. The ones who left or were kicked from their homes basically lost their property and ended up with pretty much nothing). So, to answer this thread's question we should have to answer who is to blame for the 1948 exodus. Is it Israel? The Arabs (not just the Arab Legion but also Palestinian Arabs)? Or it was just the kind of stuff that happens in every war, especially those wars which end with the founding of a new country and/or the disappearence of another, which means that both fighters share the blame? I personally believe that the last alternative is the correct one.

Maybe more importantly (in a practical sense), as Israel can't afford to grant all or even most of the refugees the right of return, should Israel compensate (or bribe depending on your view of who's to blame for Nakba) the Palestinians for not being able to grant them the right of return?

I think this is a separate issue because regardless of who is to take the blame for the refugee issue, Israel has a lot to win in the PR and diplomatic fronts from having the Palestinians to give up the Right of Return as it would take away from the Arabs a major weapon (yes, weapon) they have for making Israel give out concessions in negotiations and, politically.

This may sound crazy (because it is), but given the recent gridlock, I sometimes wonder if Israel shouldn't just unilaterally offer the refugees monetary compensation in exchange for having them to delete themselves out from the UNRWA refugee statistics (obviously such an offer would only be extended to registered refugees), regardless of wether it is fair or not, regardless of wether Israel is to blame for Nakba, regardless of wether the Zionists "stole" their land decades ago or not, to help the refugees have better lives, to help end all these endless discussions on the issue for once and for all, to make easier to force the Palestinians to quit stalling on signing a deal...

[GratefulFred]

Others may claim we stole it, but those same others can say the world is flat.

If the Palestinians have a claim to a land it is Jordan where 2/3rs of the people are natives.

[bararallu]

Wat0n,

You have an implied misnomer in your first scenario, in terms of the Arabs:
1. Collective settlement by serfs means nothing historically in any country. There is no linear political transition from serf settlement to land ownership AFAIK. Southern Africa not withstanding. There are no UN treaties that account for the condition. I'd loath to innovate on behalf of my enemies personally.
2. The overwhelming majority of community in pre state Israel (aka historical Israel, Idumea, Judea and Samaria) "metropolitan areas" have been settled by Christians not just Arabs. This is a significant factor- (a) because until relatively recently they've never have been called "Arabs" per se (this is aside from Armenians). (b) They've been fairly uniformly cleansed from Muslim Arab dominated areas, including Jerusalem, Nazaret and above all Betlehem.
3. The Ottomans dropped a significant foreign population of Caucasians and Balkans on the territory, between 1800-1920, for a variety of reasons.

There are other significant factors, like abandoning land in order for a genocide to take place- which is the bottom line of Arabs fleeing Israel in 1948. At the end of the day, the Arabs have absolute zero historical claim to the land of the Jews and other long lived historic people of the greater Levant. IMHO, there is no room for any compromise on principles. We can live with them but it is calamity accepting their fabrications prima facie.

[wat0n]

Wat0n,

You have an implied misnomer in your first scenario, in terms of the Arabs:
1. Collective settlement by serfs means nothing historically in any country. There is no linear political transition from serf settlement to land ownership AFAIK. Southern Africa not withstanding. There are no UN treaties that account for the condition. I'd loath to innovate on behalf of my enemies personally.

Like I said, I'm not sure we can talk about "ownership" when it comes to the collective. Rights, yes, but ownership? I don't really know.

Still, I think it is antecedent to be taken into account.

2. The overwhelming majority of community in pre state Israel (aka historical Israel, Idumea, Judea and Samaria) "metropolitan areas" have been settled by Christians not just Arabs. This is a significant factor- (a) because until relatively recently they've never have been called "Arabs" per se (this is aside from Armenians). (b) They've been fairly uniformly cleansed from Muslim Arab dominated areas, including Jerusalem, Nazaret and above all Betlehem.
3. The Ottomans dropped a significant foreign population of Caucasians and Balkans on the territory, between 1800-1920, for a variety of reasons.

Interesting. Do you have anything I can read about this? UN info is not desagreggated enough to divide between Arab and non Arab Christians per district.

There are other significant factors, like abandoning land in order for a genocide to take place- which is the bottom line of Arabs fleeing Israel in 1948. At the end of the day, the Arabs have absolute zero historical claim to the land of the Jews and other long lived historic people of the greater Levant. IMHO, there is no room for any compromise on principles. We can live with them but it is calamity accepting their fabrications prima facie.

I don't really know who's to blame for the Palestinian Nakba. Or better said, who's more guilty. I mean, for example some Arabs were driven out of their homes during Operation Dalet, even if such expulsions were done for military necessity (break the Jerusalem blockade, get a corridor uniting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem), others fled after Deir Yassin (which has no justification whatsoever). Israel has some responsibility for what happened.

Obviously this doesn't mean that Israel is guilty for everything, maybe Israel isn't even the most guilty party or the primary reason for the Palestinian exodus given that the Arabs started hostilities on December 1 of 1947 by blockading Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods. Also, we have to consider that it is normal that civilians flee cities during wars, even if no one forces them out, so the question of who started the 1948 war (answer: The Arabs) is also relevant for assigning blame (basically as you said).

[Mediocrates]

Revisionism is revisionism. The Palestinians practice it and when we comment on it we're practicing it too. They screwed themselves and that's that. But they will never pick up and move forward, will they? No they won't. They will squat in the dust another 100 years telling anyone who will listen that the Jews shouldn't be there in the first place.

[bararallu]

Like I said, I'm not sure we can talk about "ownership" when it comes to the collective. Rights, yes, but ownership? I don't really know.Still, I think it is antecedent to be taken into account.

It's a fine distinction, a legal one. I was under the impression we are talking principles as such not legalities.

Interesting. Do you have anything I can read about this? UN info is not desagreggated enough to divide between Arab and non Arab Christians per district.

Oi, lol. Thats a lot of reading.... I've accumulated this over 20 years. That said, if you have time start with the basics, Bat Y'or, Walter Laqueur, Bernard Lewis. Their works/bibliographies have a ton of primary sources which will suffice to justify my position. per se... wait a month until I can get to a library. On the internets we have innuendo, ve ze o.

I don't really know who's to blame for the Palestinian Nakba.

Purely political fabrication to invert haShoah.

Or better said, who's more guilty. I mean, for example some Arabs were driven out of their homes during Operation Dalet, even if such expulsions were done for military necessity (break the Jerusalem blockade, get a corridor uniting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem), others fled after Deir Yassin (which has no justification whatsoever). Israel has some responsibility for what happened.

There were small time atrocities, w/o doubt. I'm not such a blind nationalist not to admit it... find me an arab nationalist that will admit this took place in an attempted genocide. Which is my general position- if someone is gunning for you and yours, you should take absolute priority in removing them from the mammal population of the planet.

Obviously this doesn't mean that Israel is guilty for everything, maybe Israel isn't even the most guilty party or the primary reason for the Palestinian exodus given that the Arabs started hostilities on December 1 of 1947 by blockading Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods. Also, we have to consider that it is normal that civilians flee cities during wars, even if no one forces them out, so the question of who started the 1948 war (answer: The Arabs) is also relevant for assigning blame (basically as you said).

right, the rub. The thing is... how much hand wringing do you see them do Wat0n? They are singular in putting a nice cross hairs on our whole peoplehood. I don't really care if we use them as human shields anymore, that time has passed. When they so fully and so gleefully seek my demise I dont really rally behind any international conventions or fair play. I would try to be true to our tradition, but that does not encompass prostrating to them or giving them any advantage whatsoever. Their primary mission is to eliminate us in the Middle East.

[Aliyah1995]

watOn, I have seen the links you provided in your post #16. They are nothing new to me. They only tell part of the story.

Below is another link that is a missing piece of the puzzle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli..._property_laws

The Ottoman Empire embarked on a systematic land reform program in the second half of the 19th Century. Two of the new laws were the 1858 land registration law and the 1873 emancipation act.

Prior to 1858, land in Palestine, then a part of the Ottoman Empire since 1516, was cultivated or occupied mainly by peasants. Land ownership was regulated by people living on the land according to customs and traditions. Usually, land was communally owned by village residents, though land could be owned by individuals or families.[12]

In 1858 the Ottoman Empire introduced The Ottoman Land Code of 1858, requiring land owners to register ownership. The reasons behind the law were twofold. (1) to increase tax revenue, and (2) to exercise greater state control over the area. Peasants, however, saw no need to register claims, for several reasons:[12]

* land owners were subject to military service in the Ottoman Army
* general opposition to official regulations from the Ottoman Empire
* evasion of taxes and registration fees to the Ottoman Empire

The registration process itself was open to misregistration and manipulation. Land collectively owned by village residents ended up registered to one villager, and merchants and local Ottoman administrators took the opportunity to register large areas of land to their own name. The result was land that became the legal property of people who had never lived on the land, while the peasants, having lived there for generations, retained possession, but became tenants of absentee owners.[12]

The 1873 emancipation act[citation needed] gave Jews the right to own land in Palestine under their own name. The changing of this law (the change occurring at the same time as the freeing of the Africans in the United States and in South America and the emancipation of the serfs in Russia (held in slavery by the Russian landowning class) was a part of the worldwide 19th century movement towards emancipation and civil rights for oppressed minorities�and Jews were very much oppressed legally in Palestine. This 1873 secular land reform/civil rights law was popularly confused with a religious law and it was held as a "humiliation to Islam that Jews should own a part of the Muslim Ummah". The confusion between religious and secular law made the laws (ended in 1873) against Jewish ownership of land 'religious laws'. [citation needed]

Over the course of the next decades land became increasingly concentrated on fewer hands; the peasants continued to work on the land, giving landlords a share of the harvest. This led to both an increased level of Palestinian nationalism as well as civil unrest.[12][13] At the same time the area witnessed an increased flow of Jewish immigrants who did not restrict themselves to the cities where their concentration offered some protection from persecution. These new Jews came hoping to create a new future in what they regarded as the homeland of their ancestors. Organizations created to aid the Jewish migration to Palestine also bought land from absentee landowners. Jewish immigrants then settled on the land, sometimes replacing peasants already living there.[12][13] A steady arrival of Jewish immigrants from 1882 led to several peasant insurgencies, recorded from as early as 1884-1886.

As one can see, a) there were Jews living in Mandatory Palestine WAY before the influx of Jews from Europe during the first and second aliyot b) they were not allowed to own land until 1873 and c) they were persecuted (contrary to popular belief they they lived "peacefully" with the Arabs until the Zionists came and "stirred trouble").

So, is it any wonder that Jews "owned" less land than the non-Jewish population (even in 1943) when they weren't even allowed to own land until 1873. Also, do the figures in the charts you provided take into account all the barren land that extended for tens of miles between inhabited areas (i.e. the "districts")? For example, much of the Negev, even today, remains undeveloped and uninhabited. Certainly it was even more so then. So who owned this land? NOBODY, Jew, Arab, or anyone else. It was up for grabs.

Again, before there was any sovereignty in Mandatory Palestine, NOBODY "owned" land that was uninhabited. The British occupied it and, before them, the Ottoman Turks. And much of Mandatory Palestine was uninhabited, as much of the Negev is even today.

[Reffo]

Aliyah

I agree with your position wholeheartedly. Your position is well researched and your arguments are logical and coherent.

[wat0n]

watOn, I have seen the links you provided in your post #16. They are nothing new to me. They only tell part of the story.

Below is another link that is a missing piece of the puzzle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli..._property_laws



As one can see, a) there were Jews living in Mandatory Palestine WAY before the influx of Jews from Europe during the first and second aliyot b) they were not allowed to own land until 1873 and c) they were persecuted (contrary to popular belief they they lived "peacefully" with the Arabs until the Zionists came and "stirred trouble").

So, is it any wonder that Jews "owned" less land than the non-Jewish population (even in 1943) when they weren't even allowed to own land until 1873. Also, do the figures in the charts you provided take into account all the barren land that extended for tens of miles between inhabited areas (i.e. the "districts")? For example, much of the Negev, even today, remains undeveloped and uninhabited. Certainly it was even more so then. So who owned this land? NOBODY, Jew, Arab, or anyone else. It was up for grabs.

Again, before there was any sovereignty in Mandatory Palestine, NOBODY "owned" land that was uninhabited. The British occupied it and, before them, the Ottoman Turks. And much of Mandatory Palestine was uninhabited, as much of the Negev is even today.

Wow, thanks for the link. I think it provides an important part of the context of the situation prior to 1948, something that is usually overlooked. But if ownership statistics are not the best way to look at the issue, what about the land inhabited by Jews and Arabs prior and after the 1948 war? Considering, again, that for whatever reason many Arabs ended up living somewhere else after Israel won the war.

[wat0n]

It's a fine distinction, a legal one. I was under the impression we are talking principles as such not legalities.

Both are important.

Oi, lol. Thats a lot of reading.... I've accumulated this over 20 years. That said, if you have time start with the basics, Bat Y'or, Walter Laqueur, Bernard Lewis. Their works/bibliographies have a ton of primary sources which will suffice to justify my position. per se... wait a month until I can get to a library. On the internets we have innuendo, ve ze o.

I bet it is. Unfortunately I do not have that much time

Purely political fabrication to invert haShoah.

There were small time atrocities, w/o doubt. I'm not such a blind nationalist not to admit it... find me an arab nationalist that will admit this took place in an attempted genocide. Which is my general position- if someone is gunning for you and yours, you should take absolute priority in removing them from the mammal population of the planet.

right, the rub. The thing is... how much hand wringing do you see them do Wat0n? They are singular in putting a nice cross hairs on our whole peoplehood. I don't really care if we use them as human shields anymore, that time has passed. When they so fully and so gleefully seek my demise I dont really rally behind any international conventions or fair play. I would try to be true to our tradition, but that does not encompass prostrating to them or giving them any advantage whatsoever. Their primary mission is to eliminate us in the Middle East.

I know, I won't discuss this. But I don't think we should behave like them... If we made a mistake (even if it is small compared to the bigger picture) we ought to admit it and compensate those who were affected.

[Cellis]

I always thought palestinians were unwanted people in jordan and jordan deported them or something like that.

[bararallu]

I always thought palestinians were unwanted people in jordan and jordan deported them or something like that.

Poor farmers have no home if there is nothing to farm.

[Aliyah1995]

watOn-

I think we have to separate 2 kinds of "ownership" (IMHO the second one is not ownership in a strict sense of the word):

1) Ownership by individuals: By 1947 most of the land in the Mandate was owned by Arab persons. On the other hand, the land owned by Jewish persons was acquired by legal means (i.e. the land was either bought from individuals, the state or wasn't owned by anyone and thus they had the right to just settle there).

Most of the land was owned by NOBODY. Again the Arabs only owned the land that each village stood on and maybe a couple of miles in each direction from the end of the village. These villages did not take up the majority of Mandatory Palestine, not even close. The Arabs living in a village could not claim that Jews "stole" their land because they drained a swamp 30 miles away from their village.

2) Ownership by the colective: By this I mean wether any of the peoples could claim the right to excercise self-determination in the territory of the Mandate.

Hence the Partition Plan, which was drawn up by the UN. BOTH a Jewish state and an Arab (ironically, I doubt such a state would have been called "Palestine" if the Arabs had accepted the partition plan and found their state) would have been legal. Hence, Israel is PERFECTLY legal, while the Arabs lost out by declaring war on the new LEGAL Jewish state.

I think that, as far as Jews are concerned, given that there had been Jewish/Hebrew independent states in the area in the past, that such states ended by force and that Jews were also forcibly removed by the Romans, Jews have a valid claim on the land. DNA tests also prove that Ashkenazim and Sephardim are related, and that both have Middle Eastern origin.

This is all certainly important, but without Jews actually settling and developing the land, Israel would never have been founded. Sovereignty does not happen by remote control.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs can claim that they also have right to the land because they aren't guilty of whatever the Romans did to our nation, there had been Arab domain over the territory and they had lived there as Arabs (culturally) since then and while there had never been a Palestinian state that was because they were conquered by other nations, and they can also prove they have semitic DNA (kind of obvious considering the Arabs are considered as semitic, also some of them are descendants of the Samaritans, which may be a clearer point).

The "Palestinian" Arabs owned the land that their villages stood on. As far as the rest of the land between Jordan and the Mediterranean, NOBODY "owned" it.

As far as the above paragraphs go, as I said, both sides have rights to the land - and if they can't live together in the same state (and they can't) then the land should be divided (and it was [to be] divided back in 1947).

Yes it was and guess who rejected it.

Now, obviously, the whole claim has its origin on the Nakba (I use this word because it was, objectively, a human drama for the Arabs, at least as individuals. The ones who left or were kicked from their homes basically lost their property and ended up with pretty much nothing). So, to answer this thread's question we should have to answer who is to blame for the 1948 exodus. Is it Israel? The Arabs (not just the Arab Legion but also Palestinian Arabs)? Or it was just the kind of stuff that happens in every war, especially those wars which end with the founding of a new country and/or the disappearence of another, which means that both fighters share the blame? I personally believe that the last alternative is the correct one.

They wouldn't have lost their property if they agreed to live in a Jewish state or they wouldn't have ended up with pretty much nothing if the neighboring, would-be Arab state would have taken them in and absorbed them like Israel did for a similar number of Jewish refugees from the Arab countries, where they had been living for over a thousand years.

Maybe more importantly (in a practical sense), as Israel can't afford to grant all or even most of the refugees the right of return, should Israel compensate (or bribe depending on your view of who's to blame for Nakba) the Palestinians for not being able to grant them the right of return?

I think this is a separate issue because regardless of who is to take the blame for the refugee issue, Israel has a lot to win in the PR and diplomatic fronts from having the Palestinians to give up the Right of Return as it would take away from the Arabs a major weapon (yes, weapon) they have for making Israel give out concessions in negotiations and, politically.


This may sound crazy (because it is), but given the recent gridlock, I sometimes wonder if Israel shouldn't just unilaterally offer the refugees monetary compensation in exchange for having them to delete themselves out from the UNRWA refugee statistics (obviously such an offer would only be extended to registered refugees), regardless of wether it is fair or not, regardless of wether Israel is to blame for Nakba, regardless of wether the Zionists "stole" their land decades ago or not, to help the refugees have better lives, to help end all these endless discussions on the issue for once and for all, to make easier to force the Palestinians to quit stalling on signing a deal...

If there is going to be a 23rd Arab state, then they should take these refugees in and since the Quartet is pushing so hard for it, they and the UNRWA should help with the funding. And, in turn, the Jews who lost everything when they were forced to leave the Arab countries with nothing but the clothes on their backs should be compensated no less than the Arab refugees.