Thursday, June 23, 2011

Was Israel Purchased or Palestine Stolen?

Regarding a recent article called Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel by Daniel Pipes there are a few points that can be made about his comments.

The flaw in the argument presented can be found when the comparison is made of Israel being the "lesser of two evils" regarding colonizing Palestinian land compared to those who attained land by violent conquests throughout history.

Too often we hear the same cry of the barbaric rule of the Roman Empire; or how the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem with horses "knee-deep in blood"; or how Hitler used false-flag techniques to achieve the same outcome in Austria & Poland.

The frequency of these historic events which have shown barbaric examples of occupation doesn't necessarily make them the standards by which we consider "historical norm" to be a correct methods of occupation. Moreover, simply by using these examples to fuel the argument for justifying Israeli occupation puts Zionist methodology within the same category as the Roman Empire's brutality.

There is, however a grave difference between the previous British colonization and the current Zionist occupation. Even though Britain colonized most of the surrounding regions, just as the Ottoman Empire did before them, the colonies were still considered Arab land, only with British military rule. Occupation itself is not illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, however the Jewish state has not adhered to the rules of the Occupying Power's responsibility under these laws, engaging in ongoing land confiscations, home demolitions, expanding settlement construction, systematic deportations, civilian displacements, residency revocation, water resource reallocation, economic strangulation, child imprisonment, violent checkpoint misconduct, border blockades, airspace "no-fly" restrictions, and maritime seaport blockades.

In order to justify these actions, some traditionalists like to claim that the Jews were the original inhabitants of the region so it is their "right" to do as they please with "their" land. However they weren't the original people of the land. They lived there 3000 years ago when David conquered Goliath, then his son Solomon created a kingdom, then there was civil war two generations later between Judea and Samara, and Nebuchadnezzar conquered and exiled the Jews to Babylon shortly after that. That’s all - four generations. A moment in the history of Jerusalem. People lived before the Jewish rule, and people lived after the Jewish rule. One cannot compare four generations with 1000 years of Arab habitation.

Starting with the original rallying cry of Zionism - thought up by Israel Zangwill and adopted by Theodor Herzl - the following statement was used from the original Christian quote: "a people without land for a land without people" and that was the first Zionist lie. They knew full well that the region was not a land without people. In fact, they had sent a delegation of three Rabbis to inspect the territory. The message that the Rabbis sent back was "the bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man". From the very beginning, the Zionists knew that their entire project was based on fabrication.

During then time when Palestine was under British authority, land ownership within each sub-district (as shown in the figure) shows a significant percentage of Palestinian Arab ownership compared to the Jews and the British forces.

The cause and effects of the British Mandate when permission was given for a mass Jewish migration in the 1930's (as a gesture of appreciation for Rothschild's funding of WWI) caused great unrest throughout the entire region. The populous began growing at such an accelerating rate and in such a small area of land that it had caused massive collisions which resulted in the British government's decision to halt Jewish immigration. Regardless of this, it led to a large scale illegal Jewish immigration following a bitter conflict with the British authority themselves.

The simple fact that there was no room for the influx of European Jews had caused the Jews themselves to drive out Arab farmers by sending their own tractors out onto the fields owned and lived by the native people. Violence broke out and neither party stopped ever since.

While early explanations of the Palestinian refugee crisis alleged that Arab leaders urged them to flee in radio broadcasts so that they wouldn't get in the way of attacks on Israeli forces, there was no evidence to support this. At the time British and US intelligence, as well as the BBC, were monitoring Arabic language radio broadcasts in the region and none of them recorded exhortations to flee. Rather, there were calls to stay.

Palestinians today still consist of the largest population of refugees in the world totaling 4.3 million as confirmed by the UNHCR, and are displaced in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. To claim that they sold their land to become refugees is a complete misrepresentation of historical events.

There are claims that suggest the Jews purchased 10% of the land prior to the mass migration in the late 1930s / early 1940s, and there is in fact evidence to suggest that 10% of the population in the region that was called Palestine were of Jewish heritage; however that still does not include the rest of the land that was either unilaterally declared the state of Israel, annexed, or occupied. Israel's PR campaigns do not clarify the specific details of the amount of the land that was actually purchased compared to the remainder that was taken by force.


  1. Accoriding to the statistics in the area, Jews purchased about 7 to 10 percent of the land when they was 2 percent of the population. Also this purchases and the strange jews natinality are illegal because there was not a national government in Palestine to defend the nation rights. The Britain occupation force allowed another foregin flow to steal the land by lack of laws and even that 7-10 percent is illegal because that occupation government of britain was illegal and not beside of the nation's rights.

  2. And even if, say for argument's sake, that 10% was legal, it still doesn't take into account the 55% that was annexed in 1948 even when there was no final decision made for the Partition Plan draft of 1947, and then a further 10% in 1949. In addition to this, the invasion of the entire land in 1967 leaves no reasoning behind the false pretence of a "purchase" of Israel.

  3. The argument is moot, as you will not get the 5 million Jews in Israel to say "Oh well, then I guess we were wrong, lets pack up and leave".
    If you want peace you have to accept that the Jews are there to stay and a compromise must be reached to allow both people to live side by side whether its under one flag or two.
    Either way, as long as the main argument is "the Jews have no right to be here, period" they wil use that excuse to keep the war going for ever...

  4. This article doesn't suggest such a notion. Arabs are not denying the existence of Jews, in fact they are doing the exact opposite. The following article may explain it better:

    This specific article is a rebuttal of the false propaganda used to suggest the land wasn't taken forcefully. Jews paint the picture of victimisation rather than the reality that since Zionism existed so has the ongoing brutality.

    Humans live in a moral universe, and as such, none under the sun, "chosen" or otherwise, should be entitled to a special treatment based on ethnic or religious supremacy.

    The sooner the Zionist movement understands this, the sooner will there be peace.