Buying and Stealing and How Being Jewish Changes Everything

Published on October 20, 2009 By Leauki In War on Terror

This is a picture of a so-called "Blue Box", design from 1940.

It shows how much land the Jewish National Fund had bought by 1940.

You can see that it covers almost the entire coast line, much of the Galil to the lake, and parts of the northern Negev as well as most of Jerusalem.

The JNF controlled a bit more than half the land owned by Jews in the country.

The land was then under British sovereignty.

The land shown on the map on the box was neither owned by Arabs nor under the sovereignty of any Arab state (and hadn't been for hundreds of years).

If you look at the original plan for partitioning the Cisjordanian part of Palestine, you can see that apart from Jerusalem, the Jewish state was made up of the land bought by Jews, the JNF plus the Negev which was (and is) inhabited by Bedouins allied with the Jews.

That's the plan the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. And that's the Israel that was founded and then attacked by the Arabs.

The Zionists, far from wanting to "steal land" and "expel Arabs by force" were willing to accept a state based the land they bought plus the bigger part of the Negev desert minus the holiest city of Judaism, which, although Jewish-owned and with a Jewish majority at the time, was destined to become an international city.

Only AFTER the attack did Israel grow into areas not bought by Jews.

The Arabs called for "throwing the Jews into the sea". They wanted to expel the Jews from the land the Jews had bought (and in some cases owned for millenia!). But they lost.

And this is when the legend started of the Jews "stealing" the land. "Stealing" means here "A Jew bought it and when we tried to take it back from him he managed to defend himself and won".

The Jews/Zionists did NOT "steal Arab land" causing the Arabs to "defend their land". The Jews bought land and lived on it until they were attacked.

Since then Israel has kept offering the land it took in exchange for peace, which the Arabs consistently rejected.

Either way, whether Israel should keep the land it won in wars or not, the land Israel was founded on was NOT stolen. And it is a typical anti-Semitic lie to claim that it was.

Either Jewish money is as good to you as anybody else's money or you are an anti-Semite. If you are not an anti-Semite you HAVE to accept that land Jews buy is after the sale THEIRS.

What does the Holocaust to do with it?

Nothing, and it is not usually the Zionists who bring it up. The only thing the Holocaust has to do with this at all is that the Jews, hearing their enemies call for their extermination, this time BELIEVED it and fought back, knowing that nobody else would stop the attackers.

What about the Jewish refugees from Arab countries?

Those that arrived before 1947, usually from Iraq, were settled first in refugee camps and then in land already bought. Those that arrived after 1947 were settled first in refugee camps and then in land abandoned by Arab refugees. Note that those who demand that that land must be "given back" to the Arabs never demand that the Jews get their land back in the Arab countries they came from.

What about the Turks?

Nice people. They ruled the land before the British took it.

What about the British?

Nasty folks. They were good enough to install Hitler's friend, Muhammed Al-Husainy as "Grand Mufti" in Jerusalem (he was fired when the Jordanians took the city) and later equipped and comandeered the Arab armies that attacked Israel.

What about Israeli military superiority and Jewish superiority in numbers?

It is one of the more miraculous aspects of modern physics that a few hundred thousand Jews are more people than millions of Arabs and that an army financed by Holocaust survivors was vastly superior to a British-trained and British-equipped Jordanian army. Scientists are still puzzled how this could possibly have happened and most modern armies now try to hire Jews to increase their numbers manyfold and make up for any possible technological superiority of the enemy.

People who consider this oddity a "miracle" are rightly condemned as religious fanatics whereas the sane belief is that 100,000 is bigger than one million and that British weapons and equipment are just rubbish compared to what the average Holocaust survivor's wallet could buy in 1947.

(If you find sarcasm, you can keep it.)

Comments

Leauki

on Oct 20, 2009

...

Basmas

on Oct 20, 2009

In my experience when people talk about the land stolen is it the land post-isreal formation that is now controlled by isreal, not the land that was done when isreal was formed.

But on a more philosophical point why just because a person of a particular race/reglion bought a peice of land shoudl that give them the right to set up a state on that land? Is there not a big difference between the legal ownership of a peice of land and the state that rules that said land?

Leauki

on Oct 20, 2009

In my experience when people talk about the land stolen is it the land post-isreal formation that is now controlled by isreal, not the land that was done when isreal was formed.

In my experience that is rarely meant when people speak of Israel being an illegal country because the Jews stole Arab land (or expelled Arabs to replace them with Jews).

You can see on the map that not a whole lot of land was "stolen" after the 1947 war either. Instead some Jewish-owned land in Gaza and the West-Bank became "Arab land" (and all land bought by Jews east of the Jordan river was lost too).

The so-called "settlements" in the West-Bank are also mostly built on land bought by Jews, either in the last few years or before 1948.

But on a more philosophical point why just because a person of a particular race/religion bought a peice of land should that give them the right to set up a state on that land?

Forget about this "race/religion" thing.

And the answer is _yes_.

People who live somewhere should be entitled to govern themselves.

This principle is rarely questioned, unless the people in happen to be Jews, isn't it?

When people demand a state for the "Palestinians", do they ever wonder whether the "Palestinians" have the "right" to set up a state on the land? Most Zionists don't question their right to set up a state on their land. In fact the Zionists accepted the partition plan that called for such a state. I certainly don't question their right to do so. (In fact I pray daily that they will finally do that and leave us alone.)

Is there not a big difference between the legal ownership of a piece of land and the state that rules that said land?

Yes.

But continued British rule wasn't an option.

I am not arguing that buying land automatically entitles the owner to be sovereign of the land. I am only arguing that land bought by Jews under Turkish and then British souvreignty is not "Arab land".

The owners are Jewish (because they bought it), the sovereign was the Ottoman and then the British Empire (because they conquered it).

At no point was the land "stolen" from "Arabs".

The Turks surrendered sovereignty to the British and the British surrendered sovereignty to the Jews. That is how Israel became sovereign over the land Jewish-owned land. (The Hashemites became sovereign over Transjordan the same way.)

When the Ottoman Empire was divided 99.9% of its territory outside the modern state of Turkey wasultimately given to the Arabs, regardless of who owned the land or who lived there. The remaining 0.1% became Israel, the only non-Turkish part of the Ottoman Empire that was not handed over to Arab rulers. (With the exception of Libya, which was a native kingdom until an Arab nationalist took over, and Egypt, which was a kingdom ruled by an Albanian until the Arab nationalists took over.)

Leauki

on Oct 20, 2009

land stolen is it the land post-isreal formation that is now controlled by israel

Even the people who strictly refer to post-independence land gains rarely speak of "theft" when, for example, they refer to other land annexed after a war, like Silesia (annexed by Poland). (Well, SOME do, but I don't want anything to do with THOSE people.)

If you look carefully at the maps the PLO and Hamas have of the state they want to rule, you will find that it shows not merely the land owned by Arabs, but also all the land owned by Jews.

So I somehow doubt the "stolen land" claim is about land Israel won in war.

It should also be noted, again, that Israel in 1948 and 1968, offered to return the land won in the war in exchange for peace, which the Arabs refused.

Either way, when the Arabs attacked in 1947, they were not attempting to recover "stolen land" or defend "Palestinians" that were being "expelled". They just attacked in total violation of all international law. And all the UN did about it was give billions of dollars to the refugees that attack caused, as long as those refugees were of the right nationality (Jews got nothing, obviously).

Leauki

on Oct 21, 2009

Incidentally, most Zionists (and I have to know, I am one, an "extremist" according to many here on JU), would be entirely happy with a state of Israel consisting of the areas the Zionists bought including Jewish land in Jerusalem plus the Negev and the land owned by the Druze and other Arabs who want to be Israelis.

Unfortunately the Arabs rejected and keep rejecting such a deal. And that's why there is war.

So the next time you (liberal or right-wing nutter) feel the need to claim that Zionism is about "expansionism" and "stealing land", just remember that the local JU fanatic Zionist advocates neither "expansionism" nor "stealing land" and neither did or do the people who founded Israel and who run the state today.

(I'll make an exception for the Golan Heights. Syria amassed troops to destroy Israel and lost the Golan Heights fair and square, like Germany lost East-Prussia, Pommerania, and Silesia. The Golan has been under Israeli control longer than it has been under Syrian control. I'd like for Israel to keep it as a lesson for _real_ expansionists.)

Starstriker1

on Oct 21, 2009

Didn't we already establish that the Israelis weren't THAT badly outnumbered? Yeah, they pulled off some impressive military victories, but there's no need to invoke any sort of religious justification for the victory. Given an incompetent set of normally antagonistic armies driven primarily by racism and propaganda versus a slightly smaller army of people fighting for their very right to exist, I'm pretty sure I'd be putting my money on the ones whose only option is "win or be murdered".

Leauki

on Oct 22, 2009

Didn't we already establish that the Israelis weren't THAT badly outnumbered?

Actually, they were. They were just better at mobilisation. But you cannot count their ability towards their numbers if you compare numbers.

When the war started Israel could not simply rely on the Arabs being really bad at mobilising their vast armies.

Plus you can ask any anti-Israel nut: There were very very few Jews in "Palestine" at the time. Ask them. Just don't mention that you want to know because you are comparing numbers for the war.

Yeah, they pulled off some impressive military victories, but there's no need to invoke any sort of religious justification for the victory.

I think it was a miracle that the Arabs failed to mobilise their troops or use their superior weaponry.

Remember that the Arab armies were lead by British officers. Who would have thought that British leadership could fail?

Given an incompetent set of normally antagonistic armies driven primarily by racism and propaganda versus a slightly smaller army of people fighting for their very right to exist, I'm pretty sure I'd be putting my money on the ones whose only option is "win or be murdered".

As did they. And you are correct.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!