• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mayor: Israeli forces confiscate land near Hebron

Stealing Palestinians land on one hand and making yourself look like a partner of peace is truly deceptive.It's no wonder Palestinians don't trust Israel.

These people have every right to be angry, don't you think.

What a cruel and heartless crime, almost 10% of their land taken, it was already a meager amount of land to start with. Where is the justice? Is stealing one's land and livelihood not terrorrism?
OK. Let's play "stolen".

bmand.gif


77% of British Mandate 'Palestine' was lopped and made Jordan, no Jews allowed.

isr47prt.jpg



Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian'.
Leaving the other 23% divided roughly 13-10 for the Jews.

Meaning the Arabs aka Palestinians got 87% of Mandate Palestine.
(the Pink AND Red Areas)

And ½ of the Jews 13% was the Negev Desert. (lower ½ the light Blue Area above)
So Jews really got about 6% of the usable land of the Original Mandate.
AND unlike in The surrounding states... Arabs still live in/make up 20% of Current Israel's population within that land.

2/3 of what became Israel was State Land, passing from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews; owned by NO Arab.
This Includes the Half alone of Israel that was/Is the Negev Desert.



jewish_occupation.gif


and

isr-world.gif


Yes, the lower half of that little that red spot/Israel- is the Negev Desert, State Land under the Ottomans, owned by No Arab. (and about 15-20% more that was also state land). And 20% of the population of the upper half of the Red Dot- is Arab.
 
Genetic studies have been done to prove the Palestinians have been living their since prehistoric times, in my above post.
Jews are Europeans and Palestinians Canaanites?
That's odd!
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations SHARE a Common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
PNAS
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

""... A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora.

Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were Not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.

Admixture estimates suggested Low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities.

A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively Tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians.


Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different
. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora....."
[....]

Evidence for Common Jewish Origins.

Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors.
First, six of the seven Jewish populations analyzed here formed a relatively tight cluster in the MDS analysis (Fig. 2). The only exception was the Ethiopian Jews, who were affiliated more closely with non-Jewish Ethiopians and other North Africans. Our results are consistent with other studies of Ethiopian Jews based on a variety of markers (16, 23, 46). However, as in other studies where Ethiopian Jews exhibited markers that are characteristic of both African and Middle Eastern populations, they had Y-chromosome haplotypes (e.g., haplotypes Med and YAP+4S) that were common in other Jewish populations.

Second, despite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than any other group of populations in this study (Table 2). The statistically significant correlation between genetic and geographic distances in our non-Jewish populations from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa is suggestive of spatial differentiation, whereas the lack of such a correlation for Jewish populations is more compatible with a model of recent dispersal and subsequent isolation during and after the Diaspora..""
[....]

Middle Eastern Affinities.

A Middle Eastern origin of the Jewish gene pool is generally assumed because of the detailed documentation of Jewish history and religion. There are not many genetic studies that have attempted to infer the genetic relationships among Diaspora Jews and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations. A number of earlier studies found evidence for Middle Eastern affinities of Jewish genes (4, 5, 7, 51); however, results have depended to a great extent on which loci were being compared, possibly because of the confounding effects of selection (4). Although the NRY tends to behave as a single genetic locus (52), the DNA results presented here are less likely to be biased by selective effects. The extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations observed here (Tables 2 and 3) supports the hypothesis of a common Middle Eastern origin. Of the Middle Eastern populations included in this study, only the Syrian and Palestinian samples mapped within the central cluster of Jewish populations (Fig. 2)...."

again, above excerpted from the longer:
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes ? PNAS
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you're making a broad generalization here. Most Israelis, and probably most Israelis on this board, take the position that all external WB settlement expansion should cease until a permanent accord is reached between Israel and Palestine. At least, that is my personal position on the settlements.

And that's exactly why I have no issue with the Israeli people while maintaining a deep mistrust for the current Israeli government.
 
Once more, Israel's conquering of the land during the '48 war was being carried through a defensive position,

Once more, I dont think the war in '48 really has much bearing on the plights of those farmers being ousted from their land.
 
1948theft[/quote said:
It's the Palestinians who own the documents issued from Palestine.
is the british who issued out those documents, who had control of the territory.
The people called Palestinian today, never issued anything.
Before the British the land was ruled for 400 Years by the Ottomans and 2/3 of the land later known as Israel (including the ½ that was/is the Negev) was STATE Land, owned by NO Arab.

There has never been a self governing Land called Palestine since it was Israel (Judea and Samaria) the first time.

Further, if one said 'Palestinian' in 1900, 1920, 1940, or as late as 1960. one was referring to a Jew.
Arabs didn't adopt the name until after the Jews started calling themselves 'Israelis'.
-
 
Last edited:
And that's exactly why I have no issue with the Israeli people while maintaining a deep mistrust for the current Israeli government.
I don't love Bibi either. But I'm stuck with him until the next election, just like American's were stuck with Bush and are now stuck with Obama. That's the key however. Both Israelis and Americans have the power to change their governments. The fledging Palestinian experiment with democracy is currently in chaos.
 
edit...........
 
Last edited:
=Shayah;1058856815]Don't start this lame genetic crap. Numerous university studies by US and European geneticists demonstrably prove that the preponderance of Jews - no matter their current location - all share an ancient Middle East Semitic DNA marker.
Genetic Research is lame now?
 
Well when the war of '48 becomes relevant to these people being lifted off the land they have lived on their whole lives just to appease Israeli land lust, then you will have a point. :shrug:
It was indeed the Arab-Started WAR of 1948 that Lifted any people off the land.
As Resolution 181 creating BOTH Israel and Palestine, entailed NOT a Single Arab having to move.
Jews accepted, Arab states went for "land lust"/the whole enchilada... and lost.
 
Genetic Research is lame now?
Your flavor obviously is. I suggest you peruse the scientific material. Some studies are available right here in the DP Middle East forum.
 
a follow-up study[111] found Jews to be more closely related to the peoples north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turkish "Turks" of Anatolia, and Armenians) than to the Arabic-speakers of Israel/Palestinian and other neighboring now Arabic-speaking Levantines
Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does not mean that the Jewish people have a lesser connection to the Levant than the Arabic speakers. From the work I quoted earlier:

...Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews (Nebel et al. 2000)... The peripheral position of the modal haplotypes, with few links in the network..., suggests that the Arab-specific chromosomes are a result of recent gene flow. Historical records describe tribal migrations from Arabia to the southern Levant in the Byzantine period, migrations that reached their climax with the Muslim conquest 633-640 A.D...


One would expect that the Palestinians and the Levant's other Arabic speakers experienced a similar gene flow from the Arabian migrations. After all, their use of the Arabic language, which is not a recent development indicates that, like the Palestinians, the region's other Arabic speakers also experienced assimilation with those who arrived during the Arabian migrations.

In sum, in the proper context of the scientific literature, the only thing that can be gleaned from the passage that you cited is that the Jewish people experienced less mixing with the Arabs who migrated to the region. Why is such a conclusion possible? Jews and Palestinians share an ancient lineage, but Jews did not experience the recent gene flow attributed to the Arabian migration. It is that differing experience concerning the recent gene flow that has resulted in Jews being more closely related to certain peoples north of the Fertile Crescent than to the Levant's Arabic speakers, including Palestinians.
 
It was indeed the Arab-Started WAR of 1948 that Lifted any people off the land.
As Resolution 181 creating BOTH Israel and Palestine, entailed NOT a Single Arab having to move.
Jews accepted, Arab states went for "land lust"/the whole enchilada... and lost.

I find it difficult to swallow the idea that a war in 1948 is responsible for ousting these farmers from their land today.
 
Genetic Research is lame now?

Shayah made no such claim. Instead, she disputes what very likely was an effort to post select language to make it appear that Jews have a lesser connection to the Middle East and Levant than that area's Arabic speakers.
 
Genetic studies, as you see have been done and proven that the Palestinians are descendants of that area since prehistoric times,I provided the source interpret those words as they have been written and don't try to twist the wording to fit your bias.If you deny this genetic studies you have choosen to deny facts because they don't fit your views.

not sure whether this is addressed to me, but I don't think this is a fair characterization.

I also think that the description of Palestinians as descendants of the Caananites is such a partial truth it qualifies as a micharacterization or a distortion of reality.

Like I said, I see no reason that statement is any more or less accurate than the statement that Palestinians are descendants of colonialist Crusaders.
 

and sorry to keep on you like this, but wikipedia is not really a credible source. of course, some of the maetrial cited in wikipedia IS valid, but you really need to point to the underlying sources (primary or secondary), rather than a public resource like wikipedia.

Even a pinpoint cite within a wiki would allow for an evaluation of the claim.
 
I find it difficult to swallow the idea that a war in 1948 is responsible for ousting these farmers from their land today.
I also. But then again it is Hebron. Have you ever been to Hebron (Kiryat Arba)? It is thoroughly disgusting. I pity the soldiers who are assigned to patrol there. The Arabs and Jews are constantly at each others throats. If someone should ever want to see first hand why a one-state solution would never work, they should just spend a week in that ****hole.
 
quit allowing yourselves to be diverted by an israeli snipe hunt
this issue has nothing to do with any ancient claimes to the property
this matter is israel displacing people from the land that they own
from land that they farm for their living
there is nothing honest about this action
this is nothing more that israel - thru its military court - evicting the Palestinian owners of land located in the west bank:
Israeli soldiers issued orders barring residents of four small villages in the southern West Bank from their land, mayor Suleiman Al-Adam said Sunday.

The orders declared the agricultural land a closed military zone, and ordered farmers and others working on the land to evacuate. The soldiers also confiscated farming equipment, a statement by Beit Ula’s mayor said.

The villagers stand to lose more than 5,000 dunums (five square kilometers) of land, on which more than 60 Palestinian families from the villages west of Hebron depend for their livelihood, the mayor said. ...
those who are obligated to defend israel's actions have no defense for it. instead they have chosen to misdirect your attention to ancient claims which have absolutely no bearing on this issue
 
I win an apartment complex.

In winning it I inherent the fact that the former owners allowed some tennents to remain there free of charge and with a contract that was terminated once I became the owner.

However, I am nice and let these people remain in the apartment for some time. However, after some years, I find the need to expand and they've been causing issues that have been deterimental to the rest of the apartment complex. At this point I inform them that they will need to find a new apartment complex in 30 days or if they wish I'll be kind and let them continue to stay at my place free of charge but they're going to have to accept a smaller room.

How exactly would I be "wrong" in doing that simply because "They had been there for a long time"? They don't own the land, they were there under an agreement with another group that no longer is in control, and as the person with legal claims to the land if I find I need it for something I'm not wrong for taking it. MAYBE one could say ethically or morally wrong, but to do so would suggest that someone who has given something to someone for free when they don't have to is suddenly morally obligated to continually do so.

That land is not the Palestinians. Prior to Israel the land was controlled, to my understanding, by Britian. They offered to give the land to the Israeli's and the Palestinians, splitting it. The Israeli's accepted and got their land, the Palestinians refused and went to war. In the end from what I've gathered Jordan took control of that particular portion of land. It remained in their control until they went to war with Israel and Israel won that land through said war. Jordan later attempted to "give" the land to the Palestinians, however one can not give what it does not have and at that time the land was no longer Jordan's.

I don't even care too much about the Jews "right of return". Britian had control of the land, britian ceded control to Israel and was going to to Palestine before they decided war was the better option and it ended up falling to Jordanian control. Jordan lost it to Israel. No where in any of this is there an instance of the Palestinians legally owning that land.

Simply because you've been there a long time does not = owning. If I live in an apartment for 10 years I can't go to the landlord one day and go "F you, this is mine, I own it now"
 
I win an apartment complex.

In winning it I inherent the fact that the former owners allowed some tennents to remain there free of charge and with a contract that was terminated once I became the owner.

However, I am nice and let these people remain in the apartment for some time. However, after some years, I find the need to expand and they've been causing issues that have been deterimental to the rest of the apartment complex. At this point I inform them that they will need to find a new apartment complex in 30 days or if they wish I'll be kind and let them continue to stay at my place free of charge but they're going to have to accept a smaller room.

How exactly would I be "wrong" in doing that simply because "They had been there for a long time"? They don't own the land, they were there under an agreement with another group that no longer is in control, and as the person with legal claims to the land if I find I need it for something I'm not wrong for taking it. MAYBE one could say ethically or morally wrong, but to do so would suggest that someone who has given something to someone for free when they don't have to is suddenly morally obligated to continually do so.

That land is not the Palestinians. Prior to Israel the land was controlled, to my understanding, by Britian. They offered to give the land to the Israeli's and the Palestinians, splitting it. The Israeli's accepted and got their land, the Palestinians refused and went to war. In the end from what I've gathered Jordan took control of that particular portion of land. It remained in their control until they went to war with Israel and Israel won that land through said war. Jordan later attempted to "give" the land to the Palestinians, however one can not give what it does not have and at that time the land was no longer Jordan's.

I don't even care too much about the Jews "right of return". Britian had control of the land, britian ceded control to Israel and was going to to Palestine before they decided war was the better option and it ended up falling to Jordanian control. Jordan lost it to Israel. No where in any of this is there an instance of the Palestinians legally owning that land.

Simply because you've been there a long time does not = owning. If I live in an apartment for 10 years I can't go to the landlord one day and go "F you, this is mine, I own it now"

in your little scenario, all land in the USA is "owned" by the American government
such is not the case
nor is it in the west bank
 
The thread really begins to go downhill now.
 
I win an apartment complex.

In winning it I inherent the fact that the former owners allowed some tennents to remain there free of charge and with a contract that was terminated once I became the owner.

However, I am nice and let these people remain in the apartment for some time. However, after some years, I find the need to expand and they've been causing issues that have been deterimental to the rest of the apartment complex. At this point I inform them that they will need to find a new apartment complex in 30 days or if they wish I'll be kind and let them continue to stay at my place free of charge but they're going to have to accept a smaller room.

How exactly would I be "wrong" in doing that simply because "They had been there for a long time"? They don't own the land, they were there under an agreement with another group that no longer is in control, and as the person with legal claims to the land if I find I need it for something I'm not wrong for taking it. MAYBE one could say ethically or morally wrong, but to do so would suggest that someone who has given something to someone for free when they don't have to is suddenly morally obligated to continually do so.

That land is not the Palestinians. Prior to Israel the land was controlled, to my understanding, by Britian. They offered to give the land to the Israeli's and the Palestinians, splitting it. The Israeli's accepted and got their land, the Palestinians refused and went to war. In the end from what I've gathered Jordan took control of that particular portion of land. It remained in their control until they went to war with Israel and Israel won that land through said war. Jordan later attempted to "give" the land to the Palestinians, however one can not give what it does not have and at that time the land was no longer Jordan's.

I don't even care too much about the Jews "right of return". Britian had control of the land, britian ceded control to Israel and was going to to Palestine before they decided war was the better option and it ended up falling to Jordanian control. Jordan lost it to Israel. No where in any of this is there an instance of the Palestinians legally owning that land.

Simply because you've been there a long time does not = owning. If I live in an apartment for 10 years I can't go to the landlord one day and go "F you, this is mine, I own it now"


The most intiguing part of this metaphor is the part where you say YOU WIN an apartment complex.
Could you please elaborate ?
 
The most intiguing part of this metaphor is the part where you say YOU WIN an apartment complex.
Could you please elaborate ?
Sure!
Like "win" a war in 1967.

After which Israel immediately offered to return said "won" territory in exchange for mere recognition. Arabs refused. (Google Three nos Khartoum)
Only thus 'occupation'.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom