babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » netanyahu.org

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: netanyahu.org
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 25 October 2003 06:07 AM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yet the fact is that Arabs never owned significant parts of land in Palestine as private property, nor controlled it as a distinct national entity. Following the Jews' exile by the Romans and the destruction of Judea's elaborate agricultural infrastructure (which was further despoiled by repeated conquests, not least by the Arab one), much of the country became unsuitable for habitation. The Arab conquerors settled, farmed, and established private property rights (mostly squatters rights) over only a few percent of Palestine. The rest became desert or malaria-infested swamps. After the Ottomans evicted the Arabs in 1517, the largely desolate country became the sultan's property. In 1919, a British mandatory government that undertook to build a Jewish national home inherited Turkish title to over 95% of the land. A similar percentage of the land in Israel and the "West Bank" is still government owned. During an 1867 visit to Palestine, Mark Twain observed: "Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes..." Jewish settlement, which made the country habitable, again, did not violate, by and large, any Arab individual property rights. Most Jewish land was acquired. Only tiny private areas were requisitioned, against compensation, for security and public needs. As for national rights, those offered the Arabs over parts of Palestine by the 1947 United Nations partition plan were forfeited when they rejected partition and launched a genocidal war against Israel, trying to destroy it with help from seven Arab armies. After the war, the Palestinian Arabs never attempted to establish an independent state in their allotted territory. They cooperated with its unilateral annexation by Jordan, becoming part of its political system. It was Jordan, then, not an imagined "Palestine," that lost the West Bank after attacking Israel. The claim that Israel occupied Palestinian lands is therefore totally baseless. So is the claim that the Palestinians are waging a war of liberation designed to overthrow Israeli occupation. Since more than 90% of all Palestinian Arabs now live under their authority's jurisdiction, they are not occupied any longer, though they do suffer severe restrictions as a result of the war they declared on Israel and their widespread use of terror. In brief, the Palestinians are not fighting for the return of "Palestinian lands," private or national, but for the possession of lands that were Turkish or British in the past. Facts do no impress Arab propagandists and their Western sympathizers. The BBC will continue undermining Israel and spouting Hanan Ashrawi's lies. But facts matter to the fair minded. For their sake, and ours, we must keep repeating the truth and dispelling Arab lies.

http://www.netanyahu.org/chalislegtru.html[/quote]

I'm read this and thought it would be really interesting to get both the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestine opinions on this piece. Namely, Mishei and Courage.

I think it could be a real conversation starter, but unfortunatly, is not 'news'.


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 25 October 2003 01:44 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yet the fact is that Arabs never owned significant parts of land in Palestine as private property, nor controlled it as a distinct national entity.

This same principle was used to justify the occupation of North America by whites, because the natives did not share our system of property ownership.

It was also used in Africa, where the House of Lords decided in the 1930's that most of central Africa "had no owner".


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 25 October 2003 05:58 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And actually the same argument was used by Protestant settlers in the north of Ireland.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
4t2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3655

posted 25 October 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for 4t2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually it wasn't. Britain may have done a lot of bad things in Ireland but terra nullius was never one of them. Secondly, Protestant (or Presbyterian) settlement was never confined to the North, and the British system of property law was pretty well established by that time.
From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 25 October 2003 06:25 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A very interesting fact (to me at least) can be found in a book called: The American Indian in Western Legal Thought.

The author is a law professor named Williams.

He argues that the characteristic legal understanding of native peoples in America was largely created by the Catholic Church, which of course accompanied the first colonists to America, and presided intellectually over the confrontation with the native "other".

The Church provided a legal discourse which concluded that, for a variety of legal reasons, the normatively different native peoples could lawfully be conquered and replaced on the land.

Williams' book is a sustained argument that the CATEGORIES used to arrive at this conclusion were first developed and applied to the "saracen" inhabitants of the Middle East at the time of the Crusades.

According to Williams, Pope Innocent IV, in his commentary on an earlier Encyclical, Quod super his, purported to answer the question: "Under what circumstances may a people be deprived of its dominium by Christians?" (1246 AD).

In this particular respect, the case of Ireland differs, but only slightly, and that because the Irish were Christians. The English claim to Ireland goes back to a papal bull issued in 1155 by Adrian IV. The bull was issued because Ireland, while Christian, was in rebellion against Gregorian reforms, and "had to be brought under discipline."

Some people think that it may be relevant that the Pope who issued this bull was the only Englishman ever to be Pope.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
4t2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3655

posted 25 October 2003 06:56 PM      Profile for 4t2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm familiar with that line of thought, and although it's only part of a larger picture, I wish it was taught in Irish schools. The orthodox version is that in the middle of the 12th century (i.e. the latter days of Viking Ireland) Diarmuid (Mac Murdha/Mac Murrough) of Leinster fled to England (after losing his kingdom), asked for Henry II's help, and got it (and Strongbow, an earl (I think) and one of Henry's close associates, led the force, and married Diarmuid's daughter), but on the condition of accepting Henry as overlord. Henry followed later in person when Strongbow started to get a bit too independent (btw the phrase 'more Irish than the Irish themselves' refers to Normans in Ireland, then and over the following centuries) - bit by bit the Pale (Norman-controlled area, Dublin and bits of Leinster) become under full control, the Irish kings pretty much turned to Henry, even the ones who didn't like the Normans, Strongbow stayed king of Leinster because of the marriage (and is the first 'English ruler'), and at the end of the 12th century, under John, Ireland was 'English'. Legally the big date is 1210, when English law was stated to apply directly in Ireland.

All the above is true but not the full story, as jeff points out. The papal bull was pretty much used as a tool to cement English authority. Connected with the Synod of Cashel, if I remember rightly, which Henry convened while he was over in Ireland - the bull was the source document for the 'agreement' at the synod that the Irish church was subject to the English (Catholic) church. What I always think is interesting is that the papal statement came before Diarmuid went a-looking for help. The letter was ready and waiting. That bit is never taught in primary-school history.


From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 26 October 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cart:
[/URL]

I'm read this and thought it would be really interesting to get both the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestine opinions on this piece. Namely, Mishei and Courage.

I think it could be a real conversation starter, but unfortunatly, is not 'news'.


I don't have time for pulling apart that piece of drivel. It isn't history - it's agitprop...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca