Yeah, of course, it was a non-binding UN resolution that authorized a "land theft", right? LOL, coming from a blind UN supporter like you that certainly sounds credible. Let alone the fact that the land did not belong to the arabs, it belong to the queen and no individual arab land owner would have lost his private land if they accepted the resolution and did not invade Israel. But this fact you're desperately trying to ignore.
u don't understand non-binding lil' zionist schoolboy? my, my, my... whats it they teach at zionist skool then mewonders?? and stop crying, am not ignoring the point your desperately trying to make lil' boy, its just its too stupid for words... whether u want to (have us) believe its from the "queen" ie the ex-colonist occupier, or from the arabs, u still stole the land
And no one is denying the jewish immigration which by and large was legal and authorized by local authorities at that time. The fact is that at the time of the partition the jews constituted 35% of the population. But...how do you explain the fact that the arab population more than doubled between 1925 and 1946 from 598,000 to more than 1,200,000? Do you seriously believe that the arabs were reproducing like rabbits while the rest of the world were slaughtering each other in WWII? Or maybe the arabs were also [gasp] migrating to Palestine in huge numbers? What do you think? At any rate the total population of Palestine was very small in 1948 - less than 2 mln people (it's more than 10 million people today). There was more than enough room for too countries, too bad the arabs did not accept the partition, they still don't, they are still paying the price.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously claim that a non-binding UN resolution athorized/encouraged a land theft and keep blindly and ardently believing in the UN. Whatever you say, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions, post it 5 more times, provide no evidence and you may even convince Wael and Z10.
Hey do not take my word for it!!! Listen to what your leaders said! On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission): "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142) Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission: ". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143) On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937: "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144) And in 1938, he also wrote: "With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117) On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that : "Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70) Ben-Gurion explained how compulsory population transfer could be implemented. He said in 1937: ".... because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty .... And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation -- but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption --- which has been collaborated in the course of all our activity in the country -- that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force - not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142) Ben-Gurion became obsessed about "transferring" the Palestinian Arabs out of Palestine, and he started to contemplate the mechanics and potential problems that could arise if "transfer" to be implemented. Ben-Gurion contemplated the "Arab Question" in "Eretz Yisrael" and wrote: "We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129) Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, just to shut you up! On 13 May 1948, the Iraqi general Sir Ismail Safwat, chairman of the Arab leagueâs military committee, who had been appointed to lead the Arab armies in Palestine, resigned because there was no agreement on a precise plan for the war. Entry of the Arab armies on 15 May 1948 was a hoax. It changed nothing; the Arab states were more concerned with frustrating Abdullahâs ambitions rather than fighting âIsraelâ (9). There was a tacit agreement between the Zionist leadership and Emir Abdullah of Transjordan. According to this agreement, Palestine would be divided between the Zionists and Abdullah who would take that part of Palestine allotted to the Arabs west of the Jordan Valley. Britain was aware of the tacit agreement and encouraged Abdullahâs ambitions (10). (10) David McDowall, Palestine and Israel: The uprising and Beyond, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989, pp. 67 â 68. For documented details of the tacit agreement, see: Avi Shlaim, Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, The Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. See also: Bar-Zohar, op. cit., p. 157. All of that happened after the following; On the night of 16-17 April, units of the Golani Brigade and the Palmachâs 3rd Battalion attacked the Old City of Tiberias. The Arab inhabitants appealed to the British to lift the Haganah siege on the Old City and to extend their protection to the Arab areas. The British told the Arabs that they intend to evacuate the city within a few days and could offer no protection to the Arabs beyond 22 April. The Arabs decided to evacuate the city. Busses and trucks were brought and the Arabs left their city under British escort (7). On Sunday, 18 April 1948, Major General Hugh C. Stockwell, British Commander in Haifa, summoned to his headquarters Harry Beilin, the Jewish Agency liaison officer with the British army in the city. Stockwell informed Beilin that he intended to withdraw his forces from the borders and no-manâs-land between the Arab and Jewish quarters in Haifa and that the withdrawal would be completed by 20 April. The noninterference of the British Army in the fighting in Tiberias and its evacuation of the cityâs Arab population as well as the green light given by Stockwell to Beilin encouraged the Haganah into action. Operation Misparayim (Scissors), which had been prepared for a massive attack against the Arab quarters of Haifa, was revised to produce a repetition of the Tiberias outcome. The revised operation was renamed Biâur Hametz (Cleaning the Leaven). British withdrawal, from the borders and no-manâs-land in Haifa, was completed by sunset on Tuesday, 20 April. At 10:30 A.M. on Wednesday, 21 April, the Haganah launched its offensive (8).
well if thats the criterion there's still plenty of land around the planet where we cld relocate the zionists ya know... how about the hamptons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hamptons
LOL, you're a lousy failure, you can't even argue your case. Clearly all international organizations, the UN, international laws etc disagree with you. I am sure you know better though. LOL Mr International Law here does not even believe in the presumption of innocence. Thanks for participating in the discussion and helping me expose the stupidity, ignorance and hypocrisy of fringe anti-Israeli idiots. AIPAC appreciates your cooperation.