PalestineRemembered.com Satellite View Search Donate Contact Us النسخة العربية
Home Pictures Maps Oral History Zionist FAQ Zionist Quotes The Conflict 101 R.O.R. 101 Site Members About Us
Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states?
Post Your Comment  (46 comments

eMail
Print

Return to Zionist FAQ
למאמר בעברית
כדילתרגם לעברית
Posted on August 10, 2001

The 1947 UN GA proposed partition plan of Palestine is often used by Israelis and Zionists to obscure facts from those new to the argument. As demonstrated below, the myth has been concocted to legitimize Israel in the eyes of many Jews and Western people. It should be noted that each of the facts below can be independently verified either from the Zionist archives in Jerusalem, or from the British Mandate books.

The best way to present the facts concerning this question is by asking the following questions:

  • Are you aware that Palestine's Jewish population was under 8% of the total population as of 1914? (Righteous Victims, p. 83) It should be noted that the mass majority of the Jews residing in Palestine were not citizens of the country, but they recently fled anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia.

  • Are you aware that in 1914 Jewish land ownership in Palestine was under 2%?

  • Despite the active British assistance to establish a "Jewish National home" in Palestine (based on the British commitment in the Balfour Declaration), Palestine's Jewish population in 1947 was increased to 33% of its total population. (Righteous Victims, p. 83). Click here for a map illustrating Palestine's population distribution per district as of 1946. Again, prior to the 1948 war less than one third of the Jews in Palestine were recognized as legal citizens by the Government of Palestine (Survey of Palestine P. 208), however, they mostly maintained citizenship of their respective countries, such as Russian, Polish, Romanian, and Germany citizenships.

    It's worth noting that even after five decades of ethnic cleansing, occupation, and dispossession, the demographic ratio between Palestinians (8.5 million) and Israeli Jews (4.5-5 million) is still the same as it was in December 1947, which was (and still is) 2 to 1 in favor of the Palestinian people. However, for Israel to maintain its democratic "Jewish state", and above all its "Jewish character", it opted to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE 80% of the Palestinian people out of their homes, farms, businesses.

  • Are you aware that Jewish land ownership in Palestine was under 7% as of 1947? (Benny Morris, p. 170) Click here for a map illustrating Palestine's land ownership per district as of 1945.

  • Are you aware that the United States of America arm twisted the arms of dozens of small nations to get their support for the partitioning of Palestine? For example, Greece and France were threatened with a foreign aid cutoff, Liberia was threatened with a rubber embargo plus Firestone Company's president threatened to revoke his company's planned expansion in Liberia, bribing several Latin American countries by hinting at the possibility that the U.S. might fund the construction of a Pan-American highway, ... etc. (Righteous Victims p. 184 , Jerusalem Post, and America And The Founding Of Israel p. 141-143)

  • Are you aware that two US Supreme Court justices, Frank Murphy and Felix Frankfurter, contacted the Philippine's ambassador in Washington D.C. and sent telegrams to the Philippine's president, Carlos Rojas, warning that a vote against the proposed partition plan would alienate millions of Americans. Ten senators also cabled Rojas (Jerusalem Post).

  • Are you aware that the Jewish Agency budgeted a million dollars for its own bribery campaign? The money allocation appeared in the Jewish Agency's budget as "irregular political activity." (One Palestine Complete, p. 496)

  • Are you aware that the Zionist leaders enjoyed a clandestine advantage by BUGGING the rooms of the UN Special Committee On Palestine (UNSCOP), and they knew what every committee member and witness was saying? (Righteous Victims, p. 182)

  • Are you aware that in March 1948 the United States, along with China and France, was withdrawing from its earlier commitments to partition Palestine, and was pressing for "trusteeship" - an extension of Great Power rule- in Palestine beyond May 15th, 1948? (Benny Morris, p. 61) And on March 19th, 1948, Ben-Gurion responded to the idea of UN trusteeship in a press conference in Tel-Aviv with as follows:

"It is we who will decide the fate of Palestine. We cannot agree to any sort of Trusteeship, permanent or temporary. The Jewish State exists because we defend it." (Israel: A History, p. 165)

It should be noted that since November 1947 the UN GA has failed to reaffirm the 1947 UN GA proposed partition plan.

  • Are you aware that the 20th Zionist Congress, which convened in Zurich in August 1937, almost UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED the British proposed partition plan of Palestine (which became known as the Peel Commission Partition plan)? (Israel: A History, p. 88, and One Palestine Complete, p. 414). Although the proposed Peel Commission's partition plan was rejected because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" was "too small," the concept of partitioning the country was adopted by the 20th Zionist Congress. Click here to view the map proposed by the Peel Commission which was rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress, and click here to view a map proposed by the U.N. GA in 1947 for the partition of Palestine. While inspecting both maps, note the following:

    1) The Jewish population in Palestine as of 1937 was under 27% of the total population.
    2) The Jewish population in Palestine as of 1947 was under 33% of the total population.
    3) The Negev Desert was populated with Zionist Jews only in few isolated colonies.
    4) The Peel Commission allocated the most fertile regions of Palestine to the "Jewish state," which included all of Galilee and a much wider area in the coastal region compared to the areas proposed by the UN GA in 1947.
    5) The 1947 UN GA proposed Partition plan did not advocate compulsory population transfer (ethnic cleansing) for Palestinians out of the areas allocated to the "Jewish State", where Palestinians made up 45% of the total population. On the contrary, compulsory population transfer was a major pillar for the success of the Peel Commission Partition plan.

    We call upon your sense of fairness while contemplating the following questions:

    1) If the Peel Commission plan had been accepted by the Zionists in 1937, how many Jews might have been saved from the Nazi holocaust? In that respect, it's worth quoting Ben-Gurion, who wrote twenty years later:

"Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (One Palestine Complete, p. 414).

2) Why is the rejection of the 1937 Peel Partition plan justifiable according to many Zionists, but the Arabs' rejection of the 1947 UN GA Partition plan is not?

  • To give a different perspective on the issue, it's worth contemplating what Moshe Sharett, the 1st Israeli Foreign Minister, said in justification of why the Palestinian people would reject any Partition to their country. Sharett stated behind closed doors to the Zionist Actions Committee on April 22nd, 1937:

"...in contrast to us they [Palestinian Arabs] would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine [referring Peel Commission Partition plan]; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be loss to the hinterland [Palestinian] Arab states. .... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 59-60), click here to read the full quote.

  • Are you aware that the Syrian proposal to refer the Palestine issue to the International Court of Justice at The Hague was defeated by a single vote, twenty one votes against twenty. (Simha Flapan, p. 123)

  • Are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had the power, the resolution to partition Palestine was not binding since it was indorsed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council.

  • Notwithstanding the above facts, are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition granted the "Jewish state" ABOUT 60% of the total area of Palestine?

  • Assuming that you are an American, based on the above facts, would you concede sovereignty and land ownership over 60% of your country to a foreign minority, such as Canadians and Mexicans, who owns under 7% of U.S.'s lands? Click here for a map illustrating such comparative partition of the U.S. in favor of one of its ethnic or religious minorities.

    If you do not accept such a plan for yourself as an American, then

    Why ask the Palestinian people to concede 60% of their land in favor of an ALIEN foreign minority?

  • For a moment, let's assume that the above arguments and facts are nonsense to the average Israeli and Zionist, and ask the following question:

    Assuming that as of 1947 Israeli Jews constituted a 2/3 majority of the total population, owned and operated 93% of Israel's lands, and contributed 55%-60% of the Israeli Gross Domestic Product (GDP), would you accept a U.N. IMPOSED partition of Israel in favor of an alien minority?

    It should be NOTED that currently Palestinian-Israeli citizens make up 20-22% of the total Israeli population, so is it acceptable for the U.N. to partition Israel in a favorable way to its Palestinian-Israeli minority? As an Israeli Jew, would you accept a UN GA imposed partition of your country?

  • We cannot help it but to a draw similarity with a famous Old Testament story, when two women disputed the motherhood of a baby. They took their dispute to King Solomon, who decided to settle the dispute by cutting the baby in half. The baby's mother quickly objected the King's decision and preferred giving up that baby rather than killing it. That is when the wise King recognized that she must be the mother, and the other woman is an imposter. In a similar fashion, the Palestinian people refused the unjust resolution that called for the division of their country with an alien colonizers.

  • Dr. Walid Khalidi articulated the Palestinians position as follows:

    "The native people of Palestine, like the native people of every other country in the Arab world, Asia, Africa and Europe, refused to divide the land with a settler community."

As it will be demonstrated below, the decision by the Zionist leadership to accept the 1947 proposed UN GA Partition plan was nothing but a smoke screen, which was done solely to gain international recognition and support. This deception was a political ploy to gain initial international legitimacy for the existence of the "Jewish state", and this was well known to the Palestinian people. The reader is urged to contemplate the following Zionist leaders' quotes in an open mind. Note that most, if not all, of the quotes below are dated before the entry of any single Arab Army into British Mandated Palestine:

  • In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he stated:

    "
    We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)

  • Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:

    "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)

  • In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote:

    "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

  • One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel's future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed:

    "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Iron Wall p. 25)

  • Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November 30, 1947:

    "In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)

  • While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:

    "In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

  • Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:

    "We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.

  • Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department who later became Israel's first foreign minister, declared:

    "[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be [population] transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

  • While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30th, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:

    "In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%."(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)

  • On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following:

    "The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Benny Morris, p. 170 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180)

  • And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:

    "From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

  • In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:

    "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

    Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. Click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA partition plan.

For moment, let assume that the above are pure Arab propaganda, and lets contemplate what Ben-Gurion told Nahunm Goldman (a prominent Zionists leader before he died):

"I don't understand your optimism.," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipes us out".

I was stunned by this pessimism, but he went on:
"I will be seventy years old soon. Well, Nahum, if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish state I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish state. But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish state, and I would answer: fifty-fifty."

"But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind," I broke in, "and be Prime Minister of Israel too?"

"Who says I sleep? he answered simply". (The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldman, p. 99)

Finally, it's hypocritical when on one hand Zionists use UN GA partition plan as a pretext to legitimize Israel's existence, while they've rejected almost every other UN resolution since Israel's creation, chief among them UN GA resolution 194 that called for the immediate return to all Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel. To suit Zionists' political agenda, they have deliberately chosen to ignore most, if not all, of UN resolutions concerning Palestine and its people, of course with the exception of withdrawing from occupied southern Lebanon in May 2000. Sadly, Israel has accepted that UN resolution not because it was influenced by a UN, a U.S., or even a European diplomatic pressure, but because it was compelled to do so by the heroic Lebanese resistance.

Related Links


Return to Zionist FAQ
 

Post Your Comment

Posted by GMC on August 1, 2013 #152153

Many of the points you raise are valid, but I would like you to consider the following points:
1. The reason Jews formed only one third of the population in 1947 was that the 1939 White Paper stopped would be refugees from Nazi persecution and later the survivors of the Holocaust from going to Palestine and making their home there.
2. My understanding is that it was the Palestinian Arabs who rejected the partition proposal of the Peel Commission. The Zionists accepted it as a basis for further negotiation.
3. All the comments I have seen posted are favourable to your position. I suggest a healthy debate would be more democratic, provided it is courteous and respectful.
Posted by Brent on May 27, 2013 #150098

Another relevant quote I just found:

"Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement." Wasserstein, Bernard (2004). Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?, pp. 105–106.

Again on the "Balfour Declaration" of 1917 CE itself (by the British Empire to Baron Rothschild again) note that even this colonialist British Empire document stated to the Zionist movement that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" the Nakba clearly violated this.
Posted by Brent on May 27, 2013 #150097

Another somewhat humorous point that can be noted (in relation to my last post of April 28, 2013) is that these same right wing "Revisionist Zionist" hacks (followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky, whose personal secretary was the father of Benjamin Mileikowksy aka "Netanyahu" or Nitwityahoo as he should be known!) will again often go around claiming that the "British robbed us of Jordan!" (many of these Zionists refused to even recognize the very existence of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan until very recent times!!) Basically what these Jabotinsky (the Khazar Vladimir Jabotinsky can definitely be thought of as a the "father" of the current far right wing "Likud" party in the Zionist entity) following moron Khazarian colonialists (see Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik who proved the Khazar/Khazarian hypothesis correct recently!) will do is completely be contradictory as far as it regards the British Empire!

You see many times these same Khazarian ziofascist propagandists will bring up the British Empire's colonialist 1917 CE "Balfour Declaration" that then British Empire foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote to the usurious Khazarian Rothschild Zionist bankster family of Europe (the Rothschilds provided the key financial support behind Khazarian/Khazar Zionist colonialism from Europe). These Khazar propagandists, humorously are find with using something from the colonialist British Empire (who along with the colonial French divided up the Middle East between themselves following WW1: i.e. see the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the earlier Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, etc. etc.) because they say "see the British said they supported our 'Jewish state'" (how a SECULAR apartheid Khazarian ziofascist entity is supposedly a "Jewish state" is beyond any rational person!). But then these same Khazar ziofascist clowns will turn around and whine about the British issuing the Transjordan memorandum of 1922; which did officially split off modern Jordan from the British Mandate of Palestine and gave it to the Hashemites of Makkah (who had again lost out to the other British puppet ibn Saud and the Saudi family in the Arabian Peninsula, in this case specifically the Holy City of Makkah, itself) as the Emirate of Transjordan again. But if the Zionist clowns are fine and say the British supposedly have the "right" to issue the colonialist Balfour Declaration of 1917, how can they then turn around and whine about the British making another "decision" with the Transjordan memorandum of 1922?! Of course logical consistency, accurate history, and the FACTS have never been of interest to the Khazarian ziofascist LIARS and propagandist agents!

Again note in the classical Islamic period, the Caliphates (Umayyad and then Abbasid) did have separate military districts (known in Arabic as "Jund") of Jund Filastin (Palestine) and Jund Al-Urdunn (Jordan); again separate districts there.

And on the British Empire's colonialist "Balfour Declaration" of 1917 CE. This document, while offering colonialist British occupier "support" to the Zionist colonization movement, itself even made clear declarations such as telling the Zionists (right after noting their "support" for Zionist colonization) "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

The Zionists obviously violated this entirely when they committed the atrocities of the Nakba against the indigenous Palestinian people.
Posted by Brent on April 28, 2013 #149676

For Khazar "bernie"

Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" Oxford University Press

Genome Biol Evol (2013) 5 (1): 61-74.
First published online: December 14, 2012
© The Author(s) 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.

As for you trying/attempting to touch on the history of the Emirate of Transjordan, which became the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: this is entirely separate from the issue (or as the British called it the "question" or "problem") of Palestine.

Yes after defeating the Ottoman Empire in WW1, when the colonialist British and French were dividing up the post-WW1 Middle East between themselves (the Sykes-Picot Agreement, etc) the British Empire's British Mandate of Palestine did originally include both historic Palestine and what soon became the Emirate of Transjordan aka today the modern Hashemite monarchy Jordan: as one entity together. However, even this is despite the fact that in the classical Islamic period, for example, Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdunn were two separate districts of the Islamic Caliphate. The British Empire (busy as usual trying to juggle it's many pawns/"allies" in the Middle East region at this point: such as the Zionist movement, the Hashemite of Makkah, ibn Saud and the House of Saud, etc) needed a place to move their Hashemite pawns (or "allies) that had rebelled for the British against the Ottomans in WW1 but who had then "lost out" in the Arabian Peninsula itself to the House of Saud (that then went about forming the modern: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Arabian Peninsula itself) so the British moved the Hashemites of Makkah to what is today Jordan and was then called the Emirate of Transjordan.

The main bulk of the Zionist movement didn't complain about this at all, as there were NO Jews in Jordan at all and very few even in historic Palestine at that point! The only Zionists that "complained" were the then emergent splinter group led by Vladimir Jabotinsky that came to be known as the "Revisionist Zionist Movement" aka Revisionist Zionists; whose birth was because of the British Empire's Transjordan memorandum of 1922. The Revisionist Zionist movement sought their colonialist scheme "on both sides of the Jordan River"; and as such then claimed the British supposedly had "robbed" them of Jordan! It was from this that the modern, pathetic, Zionist memes (of people like the Khazar MORON Danny Ayalon) came about that you supposedly "already sacrificed and 'gave up' Jordan!". When anyone connected with reality (unlike a Khazarian like you, see Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik again! Who confirmed the correctness of Dr. Shlomo Sand), can see the history of the formation of the Emirate of Transjordan and today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a totally SEPARATE history all-together from the question of Palestine. Which the British had to still struggle with up till 1948 itself, i.e. the unfair UNGA Resolution 181, etc. etc. etc.

To close, some very interesting history on the formation of modern Jordan under the Hashemite monarchy (again a separate historical topic then the Palestine question) can be seen by looking up the Kura Rebellion and the Al-Adwan Rebellion.
...
Kura Rebellion was among the first uprisings against the British mandate and the authority of emir Abdullah in Transjordan. The rebellion, begun in 1921, under the slogan "Jordan for Jordanians", resulted in minor casualties and was at first pacified via negotiations and amnesty by the Hashemite ruler, but erupted again in 1923. The second insurrection of sheikh Kulaib al-Shurayda was crushed with the support of the British RAF.
...
Adwan Rebellion or the Balqa Revolt[1] was the largest uprising against the British mandate and the newly installed Transjordanian government, headed by Mezhar Ruslan, during its first years. The rebellion was initiated in the early months of 1923, under the slogan "Jordan for Jordanians", but was quickly crushed with the assistance of the British RAF. As a result, the revolt leader, Sultan al-Adwan, fled to Syria with his sons.[1]
Posted by bob on March 22, 2013 #149183

TS your explanation of 11/30/12 was i believe very well written and sensible.
what distresses me is that people forcibly evicted and/or who left where they lived for a variety of reasons typically resettle some where else and commence (themselves or their children) to rebuild their lives. Essentially they integrate into the country or area where they ended up and start over and rebuild and re establish their prior life.

however, in the case of the palestinian refugees, while they would go into adjoining countries (and thus shared a similar culture, religion and language) they were not permitted to rebild their lives but rather penned up for generations in refugee camps where they lived a dystopian depressing life.

why were they not permitted to integrate into the normal life style in the adjoining countries? i am sure we all know the answer. it was the cruel and callous political decision of the rulers of the adjoining countries to keep them penned up so as to maintain for generations the feelings of hatred, despair, envy. The effect was to make sure that successor generations would always be devoted to "return" because essentially they had nothing else to do and little else to look forward to.

palestinians refugees who for example immigrated to the USA or Canada in probably a high majority of cases (i have no actual percentages) ended up as either professionals such as doctors (clearly they are not dunb) or often as small businessman running thir own businesses. i have talked to many and consistently they stated that it was best to leave the camps and go to a place where they would be permitted to strive and succeed.
Posted by BERNIE on February 20, 2013 #148855

The British Mandate after the first World War was for the total area known as Palestine. The larger part East of the Jordan River became TransJordan under the Hashemite kingdom. This later became Jordan and completely independent Arab country. It was the very much smaller part that was subject of the partition plan so the information that 60% of Palestinian land would've become Jewish is incorrect and not based on the fact that the biggest part of Palestine was already given over to the Arabs.
Posted by Lynn on January 21, 2013 #148445

Well yes, I wanted to know why none of the information offered answers the question of 'Why did arab's reject the land agreement?'
Then I read what TS wrote and he sums it all up quite the way I would.
Posted by TS on November 20, 2012 #147458

Couple things:

By the way Brent you are an excellent writer. I on the other hand am not so I apologize in advance if this doesn't flow all that well or is hard to follow.

1) The UN Partition plan did not contemplate giving the Jews property ownership rights in lands owned by Arabs or visa-versa; all it did was give each side sovereignty (i.e. the right to rule) over certain territories.

2) Palestine was ruled by the Brits and it is was therefore their right to give whoever they wanted the right to rule the land. For example, if I own property in Alaska, and the US decides to give Mexico the right to rule Alaska then I now own a piece of land in Mexico or in a territory controlled by Mexico. What caused the angst regarding the resolution was not the giving and taking of property rights but rather the fact that the Jews did a better job of convincing the UN to give/gift them the right to rule certain portions of territory. Again, this was a “gift”, in reality the Brits didn't HAVE to give anyone anything.

3) When the Jews agreed to the partition, which the Arabs felt was favorable to the Jews (again because they did a better job convincing the UN – some say they along with they US used unscrupulous tactics, but as we all know, such is politics) the Arab countries got upset, didn't sign onto the partition and a war broke out. When the dust settled the Jews had conquered territories and expanded their land beyond what was called for in the UN partition plan. By the way there have been numerous Arab leaders who have since said that not agreeing to the partition was a mistake.

4) The "wars" now take us into the arena of actual loss of land (i.e. property rights). I can assure you that had the Arab countries won the wars there would currently not be an Israel. In any event, the Jews won and conquered certain territories and took certain land away from the people with whom they were fighting. Arguments can be made regarding the legality of the taking of landownership, how it was done, etc., but that is a very different discussion then “the right to govern certain territory”. As an aside, when people get conquered and expelled from a territory because they have lost a war they typically don't get their property rights back in the land/territory. Sometimes they get compensation from governmental entities that rule the land but they rarely get their property rights back without a war or peaceful exchange. It would be far fetched to believe that after the wars a Palestinian would be able to walk back to his house on XYZ street and kick out the people who know lived there...historically not realistic, doesn't happen.

5) Lastly, we fast forward to today. The Palestinians want the land back that was taken from them via battle; a battle which was started because the Arab countries didn't like what the Brits (via the UN) elected to do with the land they controlled. So now, there are people, the Palestinians, refugees, who have lost there homes and are now forced to live in horrible conditions (like many other refugees around the world). This is an atrocity, it is sad, terrible, inhumane… but, the problem is that many Palestinians, at least the ones with power, would say that they want their land back and more importantly sovereignty over a large portion of if not the entire territory. This in turn puts Israel in a precarious position because if the Palestinians want ALL OR ALMOST all the land back and sovereignty over the territory then they can only obtain their goal by eliminating Israel, which means the Palestinians will be a threat to Israel essentially forever. With this looming over its head it forces Israel to take extreme measures, blockades etc. to make sure that the Palestinians don’t to obtain materials, weapons, and other capabilities that will allow them to pose a threat to Israel’s existence. So now you have a people, the Palestinians, Gaza “under siege”, and although the things that are being done to the people are beyond the pale unless the Palestinians (those in power) can accept the fact that the Brits had the right to do whatever they wanted with the land they governed, and accept that they will never get back the entire territory peacefully, there will be unrest in the area….at least until one side is sadly eliminated.

My guess is that the Arab countries would say that the Brits had no right to give anyone anything as it pertains to Palestine. If that is the argument then it is time to dive deep into the history books and decide who was where when, who conquered who, and what actually gives someone the right to rule a territory.
In any event, this page is devoted to the UN partition plan and if the argument is that it was always Arab controlled land then most of what is on this page can be deleted.

I look forward to a response as I mostly wrote so someone can explain to me what I am missing or why my logic is flawed.
Posted by Brent on September 26, 2012 #146276

"hynzerelli" you are a Zionist propagandist. The claim that the Zionist entity is supposedly the US's "only ally" in the region is too laughable to even take seriously. Even ex-CIA official Michael Scheuer admits this in the youtube video "Ex CIA Chief Michael Scheuer Israel is Worth Nothing to United States." If one was to even talk about actual geopolitics the US administrations is FAR, FAR, FAR better served in the Middle East region in particular by many different allies; 3 that immediately come to my head: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Saudi Arabia and Qatar both have OIL, gas, and a history of hosting US military bases (some that remain in Doha, Qatar till today) and Turkey is a Muslim majority NATO member with NATO and US air bases on Turkish soil itself.

And "Israel" is not a "democracy" it is an apartheid entity, with rampant discrimination not just against Palestinians but against Ethiopians, Arab Jews, etc. etc. And even though it is completely off-topic, you throw out a random claim that as an atheist you supposedly oppose what you claim are alleged "misogynists"?? I'm guessing you just mean religious people here (i.e. your attempted slandering claims). You do realize the current Zionist regime of Benjamin Mileikowsky (aka "Netanyahu") is only in power because of the right wing "Shas" coalition in "Israel" led by "Rabbi" Ovadia Yosef who openly states that "goyim" (aka "gentiles") have no purpose for existing other than to "serve Jews" and that Jews will "sit like an effendi and eat" while "gentiles" again serve them. Even "jpost" reported Ovadia Yosef's comments there.

Atheists, like yourself, who are propagandists for the Zionist entity are especially ridiculous to observe; as you apparently "support" an entity that BASES itself on various false mythological RELIGIOUS claims chief of which is that they are supposedly the "Biblical Israelites" blah blah blah. So you literally are supporting the ultimate "theocracy" in the region; who claim a DEITY "gave them the land", and they are that allegedly that Deity's supposed "chosen people", etc etc!! Of course it is one (of many) humorous contradictions in the Zionist's own ideology that they bring up all these claims of "the Torah says this is our land" etc. but then they mostly have a secular European inspired law code (i.e. they are mostly European colonists) even though the right wing (like Ovadia Yosef, a kingmaker who was crucial in putting "Netanyahu" in power) is increasingly powerful in the Zionist entity and wants to bring actual "Old Testament" law into place!
Posted by hynzerelli on September 22, 2012 #146208

Hey brent I'm an atheist libertarian who's not pushing any pro-Zionist propaganda but in reality Israel is the USA's only real ally & sane democracy in a misogynist Middle East that's chock full of religious fanatical lunatic zealots that hate the USA.I'm not a racist cuz I believe there's good & bad in all races.I do agree completely w/ eugenics & social Darwinism. Anybody w/ a brain would realize 1 of the biggest mistakes the Nazis made was trying to exterminate the jews the majority of which were/are a industrious highly intelligent productive members of society(I'm pretty sure it was german jewish scientists who unlocked nuclear technology & rocket science for the USA).Brent it's obvious you're envious & jealous of the jews & your heeb hating is disgusting. Back to your lamenting about the plight of the American Indians.Humanity has never been fair & equitable.The indians got screwed over by the US gov't, oh well, tough luck.Again, from the beginning of time if u had the might to take & occupy land put a flag in it it's yours. Brent,u punk maggot MFer, I'm in S.FLA any time u want to meet me after I give u a smack & u start crying like a little biaaaaaatch then we'll see who the real clown is.
Posted by Brent on August 1, 2012 #145407

The last few comments on this page have been Zionist propagandist hacks, some weird Christian preaching, and badly written English that made no sensible statements or arguments at all!

Regarding the clown "hynzerelli" from back in October 2011; it seems this hack was trying to push social darwinism or something. It seems he fits in well with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and their racism/eugenics and "survival of the fittest" nonsense! But I'm sure when that comes up he retorts "No the Nazis were horrible!" I've encountered many of these same vile douchebags when defending the rights of Native Americans, you run across people who actually PRAISE the genocide of Native Americans as claiming that it allegedly brought about "good" supposedly (with Europeans ruling the land, with their African slaves of course!). But just think of the outcry if someone said "I think Nazi Germany was good, they invented a lot of things like the autobahn freeway system, the Volkswagen cars, the V2 rocket, the first computer made by German Konrad Zuse, and much more" this person would be AUTOMATICALLY shouted down and castigated beyond believe in public! Yet the fact of the Nazis prowess in science, technology, etc. is undeniable; yet that doesn't matter when we are discussing them! It is clearly as they say unfortunately that "history" (his-STORY) is all too often "the propaganda of the victor" and since most Native Americans are dead and were killed off there is nobody protecting them (just see the US with insulting sports team names like the "Redskins"!) But since the "Allies" won WWII (putting aside the war criminals like Winston Churchill of England who slaughtered millions of Indian people in British colonized India. And the US war criminal regime that dropped nuclear bombs massacring the unarmed civilian women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan), nobody even is allowed to acknowledge Nazi German inventions, etc. without being claimed to be secretly "excusing the Nazis crimes", etc. Again the official "history" (his-STORY again) is all too often simply the "propaganda of the VICTOR".

Also one last point for "hynzerelli", nationalism is a very modern phenomenon in world history that most academics say only developed in the late 18th century CE in Europe! So hacks like you who try to bring up modern day nationalist ideology are completely retarded and trying to force modern ideologies and terminologies on the ancient past of Empires, city states, absolute monarchs, and clans. Also this "hynzerelli" parrots the VERY COMMON, completely FALLACIOUS and wrong claim and assertion that the land of Palestine was allegedly only called and termed Palestine by the Romans who made that the name (allegedly in the 1st century CE going by this Zionist and their associates silly/false propaganda). All one needs to do is go to the Wikipedia article "Timeline of the name Palestine". In that article (with full academic sources noted, used and cited) it mentions how the name Palestine goes back as FAR as 1150 BCE at inscriptions found at the Medinet Habu temple complex in Luxor, Egypt which is the burial site and shrine of Ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III (who reigned from 1186 BCE- 1155 BCE in Ancient Egypt). At this Medinet Habu temple it mentions Pharaoh Ramesses III defeating the invasion of part of Egypt by the "Sea Peoples" and one of them that is mentioned as coming out of Canaan (to invade part of Egypt) is the Peleset aka the Philistines!(Which is the root of where all later words with Palestine in it: be it the Roman and Byzantine Syria Palaestina, Palaestina Prima, or the Islamic Caliphate's region of Jund Filastin starting in the 7th century CE, etc get the name Palestine from aka again from the Philistines themselves)

Also the Wikipedia article (again fully sourced with academic references) called "Timeline of the name Palestine" then goes on to note the 8th century BCE Assyrian references of Palestine such as Adad-nirari III in circa 800 BCE and Dur-Sharrukin/The Annals of Sargon II of Assyria in circa 717 BCE referring to the land as Palashtu or Pilistu meaning as historians note Philistines/Palestine! And then even more clearly we have the Ancient Greek historians and writers Herodotus of the 5th century BCE and Aristotle of the 4th century BCE who clearly refer to the land in question as Palestine!!! In circa 450 BCE Herodotus in his work "The Histories" writes of the land as a "district of Syria, called Palestine" i.e. Herodotus is referring to the concept of a Greater Syria (in Arabic Syria al-Kubra, or also termed in Arabic Bilad ash-Sham referring to the whole Levant region as one entity of Sham/Syria with different DISTRICTS i.e. the Syrians of Palestine like one could say "the Americans of California", or "the Americans of Texas", etc etc). And then in circa 340 BCE Aristotle in his work "Meteorology" writes: "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in PALESTINE, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them." Most historians say Aristotle is here referring clearly to البحر الميت al-Bahr al-Mayyit meaning in English the Dead Sea in Palestine.
Posted by Jason on May 24, 2012 #144074

Arabs in practice foils for reject it let face it Zionist had basic something 40% my personal belief include illegal immigrants. Zionist had both must effective military force second UK and must effective government agency the Palestinian Arab other hand put made Lebanon 1982 just before civil war happen look stable. Part reason Zionist beat Palestinian not just over army with fact at least two major Palestinian Arab militias groups both on each necks I not be surprise if two them get some fire fights with each other. Yes UN made mistake they did suggestion divide Palestine into something like 3 states. One jews, 2 Arabs. ALA and ASA should not have been part same countries.
Posted by Yanclae on November 1, 2011 #139218

Shall eastern shores of the Mediterranean forever be divided like oils from waters?

Will the presence of the holy spirit finally unlock the key for witness between world brethren?
Posted by doctorj on October 21, 2011 #138891

Regarding your February 7th and 8th quotes: The holocaust had just ended and he was expecting more Jewish immigration during a time of increasing tension and xenophobia leading to riots and massacres. He is not incorrect when he says 'ours and not ours' because history reveals just that. The British Empire owned Palestine, the entire region, it was theirs to do what they want with it. You can twist that concept around and ask, what belonged to the Palestinians? They paid taxes to Britain to live on the land, so what land was theirs? Before the British it was the Ottoman Empire's land. What were the Palestinians' borders? What right did they have to the land?
Posted by hynzerelli on October 15, 2011 #138781

By the why since the start of time the world has never been FAIR.If so called "palestinians"(that's the name the Romans gave the inhabitants of that area)got a raw deal,Oh Well.In reality they've NEVER ruled that land.It's been ruled by the Babylonians,the Egyptians,the Persians,the Macedonians,the Greeks,the Romans,the Ottoman Turks & then finally the British.Throughout history any people that had the might to conquer & occupy territory could plant a flag in it...it's their's.Make sure u censure my comment since I don't agree w/ your inane philosophy.
Posted by Nizar Sakhnini on June 6, 2010 #114737

The Zionist goal of creating a ‘Jewish State’ with a ‘Jewish Majority’ in Palestine implied getting rid of its people and stealing their homes and lands.
To achieve this goal, the Zionists launched a number of wars and committed dozens of Massacres, starting with the massacre in Baldat al-Shaikh in December 1947.

Ever since, Zionist ethnic cleansing and land theft never stopped. Eviction of Palestinian Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem and the order to expel thousands of Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank provide the latest examples in this regard.

Inspite of all Zionist crimes and efforts, millions of Palestinian Arabs are still living within the boundaries of Mandate Palestine. According to the latest figures of the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of Jews residing in Palestine is 5,726,000. The total number of Palestinian Arabs living within the boundaries of Mandate Palestine is over 5.5 million. Accordingly, sixty-two years of Zionist efforts to cleanse Palestine of its Arabs came to naught.

The latest massacre committed against the Flotilla while the whole world is watching will put an end to the Zionist criminal acts.

What happened to the Flotilla would put an end to the Zionist criminality and opens the road to a road leading to a state within which both Arabs and Jews could live side by side as equal people with equal rights.
Posted by Webmaster on November 28, 2009 #96396

The power politics machinations that led to this infamous resolution (which violated the UN charter itself) were captured by an Arab diplomat of the time:

“The Arab delegations had tried actively to convince other delegations to vote against partition by appealing to logic, justice and law. Their efforts were successful with delegations who had a living conscience end an independent judgment. But some delegations were compelled to change their stand when they saw power end the material interests of their countries on the other side. We remember how the delegate of Haiti shed tears when he was forced to change his country's vote to one in favour of partition. We recall how General Romulo of the Philippines left the U.S.A, because of Zionist threats. Dr Arce of the Argentine, who had stood against partition, came to me and said that he was sorry that he had to abstain rather than to vote against partition, but this was the result of pressure on his government. These are a few of the several delegates who were forced to vote against their convictions. Sometime before the vote was taken I was talking with Lester Pearson, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and later Prime Minister. I said, "Mr Pearson, do you believe that the act of partitioning Palestine against the will of its inhabitants is an act dictated by conscience and law?" He answered me frankly, "Dr Jamali, politics doesn't know conscience or law unless they are supported by power. As for us today, we are obliged to comply with the policy of the U.S.A. in what she decides on Palestine." Thus Lester Pearson remained a strong supporter of Zionism, not because of conscientious conviction or for legal reasons, but because power and political interests required it of him. The same held true for the representative of Czechoslovakia who also said that the legal aspect of the Palestine problem had been ignored and that the politics of the Great Powers decided the issue and that the U.S.A. had the last word in the matter of Palestine.”
(Experiences in Arab Affairs 1943-1958 by Mohommed Fadhel Jamali, Former Prime Minister of Iraq Web published http://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/Fadhel.html)
Posted by Webmaster on November 28, 2009 #96394

James Forestall, US Secretary of Defense at the time described in his diaries that “the method that has been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered on to scandal”
Posted by Mark on November 24, 2009 #96057

Can't we all just get along. do it for the Israeli and Palestinian kids, who want a safe play place to play and grow. Lets set an example for the kids and do the the right thing.
Posted by Brent on April 21, 2009 #74712

An example of alleged "sale" of Palestinian land to the Zionist Jewish invaders. From JNF: Financing Racism and Aparatheid:

Quote- Map 1 shows the approximate location of the Palestinian land transferred to JNF through a fictitious sale agreement conducted in 1949 and 1950 with the Israeli government which seized the refugee property.

Source: Granott Agrarian Reform, pp. 107-111
Table 1: List of Refugee Land 'Sold' to JNF in January 1949 ("The First Million")

end quote.

This is the bogus "land sales" the Zionist concluded by either stealing land and then allegedly "buying it" or by working with people who didn't even own the land in the hey days of European Colonialism!
Posted by Brent on April 21, 2009 #74711

The "United Nations" at this time was pointless (1940s)!!! All the "United Nations" was at this point was a Good 'Ole Boys club of the European, White Colonialist nations from America, Britain, France, the Soviet Russians, etc. The "United Nations" of this day was colonialists and not interested in anything but protecting different greedy imperialist/colonialist nations wishes to exploit the nations they had unjustly occupied like the French occupation of Algeria, British occupying the Palestinians, etc.
Posted by Brent on April 21, 2009 #74710

"Bea Gold" what a lying propagandist you are. Palestine has existed since the time of the Canaanites with different people; Ottomans ruled it for a time. The Jewish Zionist "purchased" a small amount of land, most of the time not even from the people living on the land (i.e this was the time of colonialism!) It's the same thing that was done to the Native Americans when they allegedly "sold" their land to the White who were holding guns to their heads and making them sign the unjust "treaties". The Zionists were formed in Europe, just see the Balfour Declaration you liar! The "World Zionist Congress" met in Switzerland, and other European nations and was tight with the colonial European governments.
Posted by C.F. Bernadotte on April 18, 2009 #74396

"If a comparison is to be made with the Nazis it is surely those who wish to force an imported régime upon the Arab population who are guilty of the spirit of aggression and domination. Lord Wedgwood's proposal that Arabs should be subjugated by force to a Jewish régime is inconsistent with the Atlantic Charter, and that ought to be told to America. The second principle of that Charter lays down that the United States and ourselves desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; and the third principle lays down that they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live."
-Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne(assassinated 6 Nov/1944 by Zionist terrorists)
Posted by C.F. Bernadotte on March 15, 2009 #70911

From the British White Paper of 1939;

"But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. "

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp
Posted by NYJew on January 12, 2009 #63461

Not all Jews believe in an Israeli state. Some understand that Jews by their nature are in exile and are not according to their own Talmud allowed by god to set up a Jewish state. Problem Solved!
Posted by Floridian on January 12, 2009 #63331

Every time a tragedy hits the Palestinian people western feelings turn to blame why didn't "they" accept the Partition Plan of 1947? This blaming comes from two-sided inner thought from Westerners: because they feel guilty of endorsing an invasion that keeps showing itself bloody and criminal as the failure of all human democraties, second because these Westerners have been insulted and hurt in 1947 by a decision that struck the pride of the pragmatic Machiavellian West. In other words, rejecting the partition plan was a matter of national integrity of absolutely all the nations on earth, the Palestinians did the right thing and Israel will always be unjust, illegal, criminal and invader. The partition plan vote itself was a fraud so how could a nation accept an injustice that was supposed to kick out 75% of its population from the part dedicated to the Jews? The westerners who keep blaming the Palestinians for rejecting the partition plan have no pride in their own patriotism and maybe their true homeland resides in their bank accounts only. Ask the Israelis if they would have accepted it, the facts and records prove that the partition plan was only a "start" for the Jewish state and sooner or later (17 Years after 1948) they were going to eat the other part anyway. Israel will be proven wrong and it will always be considered wrong despite the "beautiful" and "wonderful" achievements on the ground that impress the Americans. The Palestinians will be doing the same right thing forever despite the American mentality. The Israelis know it in the deep of their hearts and minds and they know that the map is wrong from the start.
Posted by Noureddine on December 22, 2008 #60847

The partition plan was rejected by the Palestinians for five reasons: (1) Because 75% of the Palestinian people lived in the Israeli part (2) Because the Palestinian people could not approve the snatching of its own country by half (3) Because accepting the partition is admitting that Palestine is subject to mechandizing (4) Because the partition plan was based on a graphical representation of a homeland on the map and (5) Because Injustice is injustice and the British who did not own the Land did not have the right to give or take. The people did. The British had responsibilities by the League of Nations resolutions and they failed to protect the people they were supposed to rule and lead.
For the Zionists, accepting is a matter of money and gain, because the Land does not belong to them any way and they did not care about the other people's fate.
Posted by Amischlampe on October 18, 2008 #55016

I grew up during the 1970´s in the U.S. and i remember seeing the rock throwing Palestians on t.v. and i used to think "what a bunch of idiots" but i didn´t know the whole story and now i am starting to understand why they are throwing rocks.
Posted by NisSrIn on August 30, 2008 #50725

i think thats just making everything more complicated.
they could co exist... some ppl are just too stubborn and selfish..
Posted by dmzzz on August 25, 2008 #50220

Why cant we live together?
Well that is exactly a silly question, frankly speaking i cannot see any benefit from the establishmkent of Israel what i want is simply to say the truth that no matter what Israel gives an autonomy or even an independent Palestinian state Israel still has STOLEN most of the Palestinian territory from the very first place its an occupation, asking Palestinian to live together with the Israelis is like asking the Indians to share its own territory with the British or like asking the americans to let British take over New York.
And amazingly from since 1971 Palestinians has been willing to do that indicated by the Arafat Peace proposal which is not only denied by the israeli govt but also erased from the worlds history, even till know most agreements signed by both partiers are to much of the extent not FAIR or EQUAL the coastal and the green lush land always goes to the ISraeli why the desert and the remainings well you know where it goes.Andf as if it was not bad enough The Israeli has been so vigorous in violating these agreements like the checkpoints and the Israeli "Apartheid" wall.
SO why cant they live together,it depends to whom you ask the question
Posted by Josh on June 1, 2008 #40301

The only reason why this site complains of the "lack" of Jewish population in Israel before 1948 was because the British imposed huge restrictions under the White Paper on Jewish immigration and return to the country. It wasn't because Jews weren't interested. The Jewish people didn't value their German citizenship which was stripped of them by the NAZIs either.
Posted by sceptical on May 7, 2008 #37220

It is obviously in dispute which people lived in the region first, so instead of arguing about that, can people actually begin forming ideas on how to go forward? Obviously the current policy of whoever controls the region kicking everyone else out is not working. In fact, it is only making life hard for EVERYONE!
Posted by Brent on February 16, 2008 #29185

"tim112867" the Jews that you say inhabitated Palestine first STOLE it from it's original inhabitants the Canaanites and other tribes! Also the White European Ashkenazi Jews that govern and make up much of "israeli" society are NOT Semitic people. They are at best INTERMARRIED Jew/Gentile mutts. It has also been shown that many White European Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazar Jews with NO Semitic blood!
Posted by Abdullah Abou Hussein on January 27, 2008 #27978

Hey this is a great site with lots of info, I have started building a site about Palestine and this site has been gteat help,

would just like to know if its okay to use some of the content, I will have a link pointing to where the content came from
Posted by Tim112867 on January 24, 2008 #27856

How long must a people be disspossed before they can no longer claim the right of return? It is a historical fact that the Jews did inhabit Israel in the past. They where forcibly removed. Do they not have the right of return? If not why do the Palistinians have this right? The real point is that neither of these people will be leaving. They need to find a way to live together.
Posted by Omar Taleb on January 15, 2008 #27255

this a great website! i wanna truly thank the creators! im a teenager who has been trully enlightned
Posted by RoLa on December 22, 2007 #25780

somaya, these "jews" are people too dont you think? and now, their population has reached millions so how are you expecting them to leave? and where? some of them want peace and want to share this land and live peacefully.i know that palestine is for the palestinians but the israelis came to it a reallly long time ago, so now, u cant fix anything, and ur generelizing when u say they kicked us out, this generation and the generations to come didnt do that, their ancestors did, so if they did a horrible move and a mistake like this why should we do it too?? why should we ruin lives ? cant we be better than that?why repeat history? i know we're better, and i know that there is some israelis that think the same thing. its reality and we have to live with it.that was history and we're about to make more history, why not make it good? enough fighting and destroying.and i hope palestine will eventually be a country and regain what it lost in the past, we'll always defend it and live for it
Posted by سمية on November 30, 2007 #24425

To Rola (& whoever shared the same opinion):

Why should the Jews share OUR LANDS with us?? There is NO COUNTRY in the whole world established based on religion, except for the bloody israel. Let the jews go to where they came from: Poland, Russia, wherever. Palestine WAS for our ancestors and STILL IS. They kicked us out and took it over, and sooner or later, we will kick them off too and get back what belongs to us.

Long Live Palestine. israel (with a small initial) no more -- inshallah.
Posted by RoLa on October 15, 2007 #21737

why cant we live together? why cant we accept that nobody is willing to help us and try to fix it ourselves.. instead of fighting for all these years, why cant we just be why cant we just learn to live in peace and together, whats so wrong about sharing the land? we've had it for thousands of years, why dont we embrace it instead of destroying it and killing each other? we dont realize that this could be good, it good be beneficial and useful to both sides...we just need to let go, let go of the past, and let go of anything thats stopping us from living peacefully. The past was hurtful, to everybody, millions and billions were killed, why should this hurt and suffer go on? why should our kids and grand kids go through what we and our ancestors went through??we're supposed to make this life safe and peaceful for them...its really this simple...no need for big words or stupid negotiations...we could live side by side...share this land, this holy land...
Posted by Jorge on August 28, 2007 #19609

We can't take control of the history, we can't do anything if the land was taken with killing in past centuries and we can't revert the history, we aren't responsible of the history or the past, but we are responsible of the present, we are responsible to build a good future, if we grow with the tendency to reject people and watch them like enemies this history will never end, but the world will change iF we understand the history carried till here, and iF we understand Jews or Palestinos or Christians or Africans are neighbors BECAUSE THE FORTUNE WHEEL turned it so, the present could bring us a good future for all us. That wheel of fortune was turned so by the past, by the people of the past and we can't change it, but we can change our present, our mind... but some people does not agree, some people rejects this kind of think . Peace.
Posted by Easy Creeper on June 15, 2007 #17243

As an American I had never read the history of Palestine. Clearly our small Jewish population exerted every influence to get the land for their fellow Jews and continue even today with their disproportionate representation in our congress. For my part I'll let my reps in congress know the Arabs need more fair treatment.
Posted by Brent on April 6, 2007 #14823

umm: EARLY BRONZE AGE CANAAN. City-states developed in Syria-Palestine around 3100, serving as mediators between the protoliterate culture of Mesopotamia and the Gerzean culture of Egypt. (From Bartleby Encyclopedia). The Canaanites (Hebrew: ؟؟؟؟؟؟ ‎, Standard Hebrew Knaanim, Tiberian Hebrew K؟na؟anîm) are said to have been one of seven regional ethnic divisions or "nations" driven out before the Israelites following the Exodus. Specifically, the other nations include the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1). The Israelites came in and slaughtered Canaanite, and other, men, women, infants, and animals. The Kingdom of Judah and Israel are used by lying Zionists to say "Israel always belonged to us" and "God gave us this land". NO, the land was taken through sickening genocide, just read the genocide chronicle, the "Hebrew Bible".
Posted by umm on April 5, 2007 #14810

Willowdancer: not the Palestinians, they didnt arrive until after the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were established and even then, they came from Southern Greece. The word 'Palestine' comes from Philistine. Please get your facts straight.
Posted by AL-ASADIYA on February 23, 2007 #14087

Maccabee, who was living in palestine before the hebrews found it? What group of people were destroyed by the hebrews that were living there? Where did the hebrews come from before Eypgt?
Posted by shalbe on February 15, 2007 #13891

But the Jews were already living in the Land in ancient times. So they don't need the UN to give them legitimacy!
Posted by أبو جيفارا on February 9, 2007 #13667

After a carefull study of the palestine and the Isreal conlict over the years, evidences are rift that the U.S.A role in an attempt to resolve the conflict had been suspicious and lack sincerrity! why should the U.S.A recorgnized the state of Istreal as in a mad rush without examining the motive behind it, without questioning the legitimacy of such declaration! The United States was biased in this respect no doubt about that. America role till date proves that they have simpathy with Isreal as a race for reasons best known to them. It is my appeal to the international community to evaluate and review the position of the U.S.A henceforth, why the Isrealy Palestine conflict last. Thank you. jaybee obazee MULTIPPLE CONNECTIONS NIGERIA