Riz Khan - Question of the Week - 7 May 08

We want peace !!!

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point, but it seems to me this line of reasoning is intended to imply that it was somehow fair or just for the Jews to have declared the state of Israel as they did in Palestine. If this is not the intended implication, I fail to see where this reasoning is intended to go or what conclusions are supposed to be drawn from this framework where all of what was the Ottoman Empires is considered. The relevant framework is Palestine, west of the Jordan.

I have also ready much from both sides and it's usually pretty easy to spot propoganda or obvious distortions of facts/truth.

But it is rather difficcult to find balanced information that truthfully represents both sides.

One of the sites that I think is fair and non-biased is the folowing: mideastweb(dot)org/briefhistor y(dot)htm

We'll see if this circumvents the policy about not posting web links. :-)

My "view" was taking into consideration ALL of the land divisions that took place after WWI, not just the Middle East. It was that, compared to all other conquered territories, the Arabs fared pretty well even though the land that was eventually partitioned in 1947 contained a Jewish minority (30%) that got about 50% of that land. Not equally "fair" to all sides but not that much different than what the British did in India: splitting it into India and Pakistan in 1947.

We are talking about Arabs in Palestine, not Arabs in other lands. I fail to see the relevance of this line of reasoning. The Jews declared for themselves most of the land in which they were a minority. That's just inequitable, plain and simple.

Not to "split hairs" but, according to what I have read, the area of what is now called Jordan WAS part of the original Palestine Mandate given to the British at the San Remo conference in 1920. In 1922 the mandated land was split up and the area east of the Jordan river was designated as Transjordan. The map also shows what looks to be probably the Golan Heights as being given to Syria in 1923. :-)

Right, the Mandate included Palestine and Transjordan. We are speaking about Palestine, west of the Jordan River. The Jews did not take "5%" of Palestine. They took more than 50%.

An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land, or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned.

The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state.

Of course this doesn't make the partition "fair" but one should not take for granted that the Arabs of Palestined OWNED the other 92-94% of the land.

It would also be interesting to know what kind of compensation (if any) was offered to Arabs.

No, no one should not take for granted that the Arabs "owned the other 92-94% of the land", but it isn't necessary to do so to recognize the injustice that occurred.

We know the relevant facts, the Jews declared for themselves most of the land in which they were a minority, to which they were not legally entitled.

You own figures clearly demonstrate this injustice.