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.

[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.

[curlyg]

One big discrepancy I'd like to point out is Zionist reliance on the UN partition plan. That was a General Assembly resolution. Today, we reject General Assembly resolutions as mere recommendations, not having any legal force. But we conveniently overlook that fact when citing the partition plan as the international justification for a Jewish state...

[bararallu]

Curly,

you make a good point. I've always felt that anything enabled by the UN is mired in profound hypocrisy. It is also rather debatable whether there is anything really "international" about it- rather than modern IA being actually done by a network of bi-national agreements. When we talk borders etc more so. When Jewish sovereignty was being debated, there was no such thing as the UN, all negotiations where done with entities who controlled the land, like the Ottomans and then the British.

There are and have been many nations denied the right of self determination just based on enemy blocks in the UN, the Kurds being a fine example. And by denied I mean specifically "recognized". Another data point- Georgia was just carved up by Russia. The latter sprouted 2 nation states, which only had 3 countries recognize them in the UN I believe. The UN is a sandbox for the largest power brokers, like it's WW1 antecedent- at best it's an enabler of traditional regional hegemony, at worst its a primary tool for eroding the treaty of Westphalia, and everything it stands for.

[Mediocrates]

You assume that a priori any starting position of the UN and its Arab states is grounded in reality, truth, wisdom, rationality, fact or justice. It is not. It is designed from the first motives to persecute and ultimately annihilate all Jews. Period. It does not matter what half baked collection of reasons some fool pulled out of his butt yesterday. It doesn't matter which version of parsing revisionist stupidity they want to to trumpet around. None of it matters. Why? Because they are fungus. Clean one off and another pops up. There's always some evil assistant whipping up the next batch of 'reasons'.

I sincerely believe that the era of talking about talking about it is over. It's been over for a decade. The patient died and no one will call the time of death. There is no path forward that involves negotiations, or dialog or whatever it is Obama and his advisers think will keep Jewish dollars in the election pipeline. There is no point to any of it. The Arabs have told us all, happily, clearly in English this over and over if only the idiots who decide policy would stop deluding themselves that they didn't hear what they just heard.

I think what the Palestinians need to hear is the harsh cold language of reality. They need to hear that the door, the window, whatever, on their foot dragging has finally slammed shut. There's nothing left to dawdle over. It's done.

[curlyg]

Curly,

you make a good point. I've always felt that anything enabled by the UN is mired in profound hypocrisy.

It is a noble idea, in theory at least. I think in principle the idea of a forum for states to act collectively and regulate their own conduct can be a positive and "civilizing" force. The problem begins when a large proportion of the member states don't take seriously the objectives which the organisation purports to have been established for and instead exploit it as a forum for advancing their interests, and this is pretty much what the UN boils down to.

Having said that I would still distinguish between the political organs and the humanitarian ones - the latter, while still sometimes begin politicized, at least do important work.

It is also rather debatable whether there is anything really "international" about it- rather than modern IA being actually done by a network of bi-national agreements. When we talk borders etc more so. When Jewish sovereignty was being debated, there was no such thing as the UN, all negotiations where done with entities who controlled the land, like the Ottomans and then the British.

You can say many things about the UN and I will agree with you, but to say essentially that it is unimportant is a bit naive imo. The basic positivist approach to international law/international relations is as you say that states interact and bind themselves through a network of bilateral treaties. But the proliferation of international organisations (established by multilateral treaties which states sign and ratify), especially the UN, is significant (and does fit neatly in this positivist approach as well). At the time when the Zionists were negotiating for the Land of Israel this process was barely in its infancy, if it had even begun. But I think increasingly we are seeing a rise in the importance of international institutions and international law. Obviously states are still the primary actors in international affairs and ultimately it is their decisions which count, but international law is often the yardstick by which others measure the legitimacy of state conduct. The tide of history seems to be moving in favour of international law and international courts like the ICJ/ICC, as Israel increasingly knows from experience.

Whether this infant international system (which is highly Eurocentric) will last as China/India and other non-European powers continue to rise is an open question.

at best it's an enabler of traditional regional hegemony, at worst its a primary tool for eroding the treaty of Westphalia, and everything it stands for.

What do you mean?

[bararallu]

It is a noble idea, in theory at least.

I don't think it was from the inception. It was created to keep a muzzle on Germany and Japan first and foremost. Neither are in the SC to this day. It also begs the question why China is in and India is out... France? Why is France currently on the SC? Anyway....

I think in principle the idea of a forum for states to act collectively and regulate their own conduct can be a positive and "civilizing" force. The problem begins when a large proportion of the member states don't take seriously the objectives which the organisation purports to have been established for and instead exploit it as a forum for advancing their interests, and this is pretty much what the UN boils down to.

There have been ample evidence, from the LoN, and otherwise, to illustrate that nothing more than block politics, with deterministic agendas would proliferate. It brings nothing to the table IMO, accept a tiny measure of intent and hence transparency. And even that is questionable since agitprop is the name of the game.

Having said that I would still distinguish between the political organs and the humanitarian ones - the latter, while still sometimes begin politicized, at least do important work.

Please explain how the UNRWA and UNICEF don't contribute to political discourse to be polite and otherwise do something that remediation rather than contributes to conflict. I will blanket state that after 1950 every single UN humanitarian undertaking is mired in political posturing and more often than not worsens the situation objectively. Minimally it provides massive overhead with it's bureaucracy.

You can say many things about the UN and I will agree with you, but to say essentially that it is unimportant is a bit naive imo. The basic positivist approach to international law/international relations is as you say that states interact and bind themselves through a network of bilateral treaties. But the proliferation of international organisations (established by multilateral treaties which states sign and ratify), especially the UN, is significant (and does fit neatly in this positivist approach as well

.

Which have done what compared to other non UN NGOs, much less private sector charity?

At the time when the Zionists were negotiating for the Land of Israel this process was barely in its infancy, if it had even begun. But I think increasingly we are seeing a rise in the importance of international institutions and international law.

Lets not confuse formalization for efficacy.

Obviously states are still the primary actors in international affairs and ultimately it is their decisions which count, but international law is often the yardstick by which others measure the legitimacy of state conduct. The tide of history seems to be moving in favour of international law and international courts like the ICJ/ICC, as Israel increasingly knows from experience.

The tide of history is linked to national aspirations and resources. The UN IMO does nothing to create a more fair environment nor divvy up resources anymore appropriately. It leverages existing N-S footprint, and freezes things arbitrarily- e.g., "Iraq", "Palestine". It empowers things like OPEC.

Whether this infant international system (which is highly Eurocentric) will last as China/India and other non-European powers continue to rise is an open question.

True.. On civilization generally-

Friedrich Nietzsche:
"In one of my last conversations with Darwin he expressed himself very gloomily on the future of humanity , on the ground that in our modern civilisation natural selection had no play and the fittest did not survive... It is notorious that our population is more largely renewed in each generation from the lower than from the middle and upper classes."

Rober E. Howard:
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph."

Call me a pessimist...

What do you mean?

IMO, there at there are two fundamental forces at play in IA: (1) Regional hegemony as executed by traditional power brokers and (2) drive to abolish the nation state. Sometimes those agendas are actually work in concert: case of Israel in the UN. You can make an argument that it is essentially identical to the predicament during the tenure of the League of Nations. Large multi ethnic entities were desiccated by socialist and sub nationalist processes, yet power brokerage is still done by state actors. There was great fear that corporations would assume this responsibility in the 80's, a lot of SciFi explores that alternative history. Realistically though, it's just reassembly of national aspirations.

[Aliyah1995]

While I agree that more often than not the UN is full of hypocritical resolutions that we (Zionists) do not take seriously, it is also true that our adversaries are always quoting the UN resolutions against Israel like the UN is the Tanach. THEY cannot have their cake and eat it. They can't call Israel a "bastard state" when a UN resolution called for her founding, while at the same time using UN resolutions against Israel to strengthen their argument.

[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).